Talk:Sega Genesis/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 24

Edit request on 27 March 2013

See FAQ #13

It would be nice to see this page retitled Sega Mega Drive, after all that is the consoles worldwide name, Genesis is simply the North American name. As it currently is this page title is for the minority and needs to be changed

59.167.95.245 (talk) 05:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Read the FAQ at the top of the page. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Fully protected? That's weird. I thought it was supposed to be a 24-hour protection. Wasn't that over a week ago? APL (talk) 07:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• Not done: This is a long-running content dispute, and admins are only allowed to make edits to protected pages if those edits have consensus. If you disagree with the protection, you should ask Dennis Brown about it, as he is the one that protected the page. If talking with him doesn't resolve things, you can make a request for unprotection at WP:RFPP. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the page should be renamed to suit a worldwide English speaking audience not North America only 82.41.107.134 (talk) 08:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion has been noted. Please read the FAQ. Thank you. --McDoobAU93 14:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I deleted this section per FAQ #13 but it has been restored. There is nothing new or productive raised or discussed here that is not already covered in the FAQ. It's so vacuous of content that it is borderline spam. I suggest it be deleted accordingly... --B2C 19:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed tweak to the memory map info

OK, I woulda already done this myself if it wasn't locked ... need someone with sufficient access to give it a go.

The current description of it is a bit confusing because of potential confusion over megabits vs megabytes and the like, and how it looks like the memory map size may be getting confused with the cartridge one (at first I thought that might actually be what was stated, until I realised that 16Mbit =/= 4Mbyte). At least, that was the case for me. Maybe I'm just being thick.

Basically all I was going to do was make it more explicit what was what. So, e.g:

"The console's memory map spans the 68000's entire 16 Megabyte address space, from the 4 MB reserved for ROM cartridges at the "bottom" of the map (#0000.0000 - #0040.0000, or 0 MB – 4 MB), to the 64 KB of main program RAM at the "top" (#00FF.0000 - #00FF.FFFF, or 15.94 ~ 16.00MB), with other areas reserved for VRAM, boot ROM, etc."

Plus maybe something about space not reserved in the default map being usable by add-ons that use the system bus edge connector, such as the Sega CD? I presume that's the case anyway. Not written it in there as it's not something I know for definite, and particularly if it's the case I don't know what the ranges are, but it would be a fairly normal way of doing things. There's enough space, indeed, that all the memory in the 32X and Sega CD could be mapped in as directly accessible RAM and ROM (between, say, 4MByte and 5MByte, maybe 4.5 – 6.0MB if my maths proves to be a bit off...), and still leave plenty of room for memory-mapped IO to interface with the additional chips and the CD drive... 193.63.174.211 (talk) 11:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Sega Mega-CD?

For what it's worth, I'd like to voice my disagreement with the US-centric title of the article. As has been mentioned before:

• To say the console is "also known as Sega Mega Drive" is simply backwards when regarding the history of the console

• So because the US is the single largest English-speaking country, they take precedent over the many other countries where English is spoken, regardless of appropriateness? Two small examples: Suede are a well-known British band who had to be renamed as The London Suede in the US, and Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone had to be amended to "Sorcerer's Stone" in the US. Following the above line of logic, those articles should be renamed for the US' benefit. Ridiculous.

I know the (obviously untrue) stereotype is that Americans don't have a world view, but this is impressively unilateral.

Which brings up another point: since the Mega-CD was renamed Sega CD for the sole benefit of the US, should that article be renamed too?

46.65.72.132 (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not only that the US is larger, but that the userbase in the US (and Canada) is much larger than other English territories, on TOP of the fact that its origin is from a non-English speaking country. Note that Suede and Harry Potter are British in origin, so the comparison doesn't apply, even beyond the fact that in both cases the original title is likely better known. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

"the userbase in the US (and Canada) is much larger than other English territories" – are there any numbers to back this up? Sorry for the pedantry, but I'd be genuinely interested to see how significant the difference is to weigh more importance to primarily one country over several others. Edit: Numbers found in original article – I'll concede this point.

"its origin is from a non-English speaking country" – but the origin name is with English words. Where it comes from shouldn't matter in this case. If the original name was in kanji characters, then it'd be different.

"Note that Suede and Harry Potter are British in origin, so the comparison doesn't apply" – please explain why? In all cases, a title has been renamed for the US market. Final Fantasy VI was renamed in the US as "Final Fantasy III", so why not retitle the article for VI as "Final Fantasy III", with a section nothing that it's "also known as Final Fantasy VI" for the vastly smaller non-US userbase? I'm being slightly facetious, but I hope you can see the point that's being made. 46.65.72.132 (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

FFVI is an even worse example as it HAS been released in the US as FFVI, multiple times even. On the other hand, we have articles under both the Dragon Quest and Dragon Warrior names depending on if the game got released in the US under the DQ name or only under the DW name. As for 'English speaking words', that's pretty irrelevant given the large number of Japanese games that use them. We don't have an article at, for instance, Phantom Kingdom, it's at Makai Kingdom: Chronicles of the Sacred Tome. Stunt Race FX, not Wild Trax. Etc. etc. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

/facepalm ... OK, OK, if we need to be pedantic about it ... FFIV? That was released as FFII in the states, not sure if it got rereleased under its proper name since. Talking theoretically, what happens to the ones which never got a release at all, until much more recently? If we rename things retroactively, then a/ what would they then be called in a putative wikipedia where said retconning releases never happened (or had yet to happen), b/ if for some reason another version of the Genesis gets released in the US and is then itself called a Mega Drive, can this article be renamed and have the lede switched around? Cuz, yknow, there's a need for consistency... 193.63.174.211 (talk) 11:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes of course Final Fantasy IV has gotten US releases under that name. As for later renames, I think my post above shows what would happen -- the example I gave of Dragon Warrior VII is perfect, as it recently got a 3DS remake, and if that comes out in English the article should be changed to reflect the new name. If your theoretical example happened, then I imagine this article would also change, but it's not as if Sega just released the console and gave up on it -- to this day Sega uses the names (they sell collections called "Sega Genesis & Megadrive Classics", for example -- note which name is first). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You still haven't explained why Suede and Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone shouldn't be retitled, following the above logic. (I'll gladly accept any corrections to the following since your knowledge on the subject is obviously greater than mine) Even though Makai Kingdom: Chronicles of the Sacred Tome and Stunt Race FX weren't the original titles, only one country had the original title; so it makes sense for those articles not to use the Japanese title for the English-language Wikipedia, even if they're not the original titles. But for the Mega Drive article, it's the other way around: only in two countries was it known as Genesis – all other English-speaking countries kept the original name. If population is the overriding factor, why not rename this the North American Wikipedia?

The original point I was making was: if we're titling articles for the US' benefit (despite the rest of the world having a different name), shouldn't Sega Mega-CD and Sega Multi-Mega be renamed Sega CD and Sega CDX?46.65.72.132 (talk) 11:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I already mentioned the fact that Harry Potter, for instance, not only originated in an English speaking country, but more people likely know it by its original name. This is simply not true with the Genesis. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

"not only originated in an English speaking country" – once again, what's the specific point you're trying to make with this statement? The country's origin language doesn't affect the Mega Drive's product name in this case.

"more people likely know it by its original name" – Yes, only in two countries are the names "Genesis" and "Sorcerer's Stone" used. In every other country on the planet, they're known as "Mega Drive" and "Philosopher's Stone". So following your line of logic, more people likely know "Genesis" by its original name of "Mega Drive".

"This is simply not true with the Genesis" – How can fewer people be aware of "Mega Drive" than "Philosopher's Stone", considering the above? 46.65.72.132 (talk) 14:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not a matter of two countries v. rest of world. The Genesis/MegaDrive wasn't sold in many countries. In many countries where it was sold, very few people bought it. More consoles were sold as Genesis than MegaDrive, so that hurts your argument as well. Furthermore, in many countries in most countries where it was sold as Mega Drive, English isn't their first language. So basically, there is no argument for this to be Mega Drive based on the number of reliable sources, the number of consumers that bought the consoles, or on usage in the English speaking world. Add to that the WP rules clearly state that this article should be Genesis as that was the original name and it meets naming criteria otherwise, this is a slam dunk.LedRush (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

"This is not a matter of two countries v. rest of world" – yes and no. This isn't an anti-US and Canada argument, but the change to Genesis is solely for the benefit of those two countries.

"More consoles were sold as Genesis than MegaDrive" – indisputable, yes. But this brings me back to my repeated point which anyone has yet to counter: if population/ exposure is a deciding factor in titling articles, why isn't Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone retitled "Sorcerer's Stone", since more people (America) know the film by that name? This also applies to Mega-CD and Sega 32X.

"Furthermore, in many countries in most countries where it was sold as Mega Drive, English isn't their first language" – once again, the (original) name of the actual product itself is in English. The product name isn't and wasn't changed to match the local language to each country. In this case, the country of origin doesn't and shouldn't matter if the product name itself is in English.

"this article should be Genesis as that was the original name" – Wrong. Genesis was the first name given to the product in an English-speaking country, after it was changed from Mega Drive before release due to legal problems. There's a distinction between the two.

"this is a slam dunk" – that this discussion is taking place clearly shows it's not a 'slam dunk'. 46.65.72.132 (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think your "repeated point which anyone has yet to counter" is addressed by the FAQ itself, and one of the reasons that the article's name is Genesis: Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone was the name of the work when it was first used in an English-speaking country. So, in other words, the very reason that the article is at "Philosopher's Stone" instead of "Sorcerer's Stone" backs up one of the reasons why this article is at Genesis. Thanks for agreeing on that rationale for the name. Now, as to the name in Japanese being rendered into English, Japanese is loaded with "loan words" from other languages, just as English is, so just because the loan words originally came from English does not mean the name is English. Since we're rehashing the same arguments over and over, I think it is time for you to put down the stick. --McDoobAU93 01:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Even with an unnecessarily sarcastic comment and your incorrect claim that the name was "Japanese rendered into English" (the Japanese console and game boxes, and the article itself confirm it's actually the other way around and the product name is actually English), I take your point. 46.65.72.132 (talk) 02:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

And, in case I didn't state it before, Mega-CD is where it is because all the sister articles of the Mega Drive were changed over automatically, the first time Sega Genesis became Mega Drive. I believe all their original names are at Sega CD, Sega CDX, etc. (If I recall. It has been a little while since I read through all the archives.)--SexyKick 04:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they should. As Sega 32X is also named in conjunction with that naming scheme. In fact, the only reason the Sega Mega-CD article is at the name it's currently at (according to what I can find in archives) is because of this article having its name changed in the past.--SexyKick 13:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

How does Sega 32X follow the naming convention? In the US, it was called the "Genesis 32X". As far as I'm aware it was never simply titled "32X" – the article itself explains there was always a prefix to "32X" in the product name; whether it was "Genesis", "Mega Drive", "Super" etc. With no single overriding product name, it's understandable for the article title to be simplified to Sega 32X (as it's known informally). 46.65.72.132 (talk) 14:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

46.65 said :"The country's origin language doesn't affect the Mega Drive's product name in this case."

That's correct. According to Wikipedia policy subjects that are inherently "British" or inherently "American" should be described with that language. That is why Harry Potter must use the British language variant. That policy does not apply to this article, because the console is from Japan, where English is not the major language.

Any argument that involves a comparison to Harry Potter (or Suede) is invalid here, because that policy does not apply to this article. APL (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm worried that this precedent – using the name that "most people" or "the biggest userbase" will find recognisable – enforces an institutional North American bias by default; the US and Canada have much larger populations than other English-speaking countries. Unless it bombs in North America, the original name of a globally-released product can almost never win this argument. CNash (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The primary argument for "Genesis" is that the Genesis name was used first on Wikipedia. (There was an article split then a merger, so the history is a little difficult to track.) This is the proper way to settle these issues according to policy.

The reason that counting the "units sold" keeps coming up is that many editors who want "megadrive" keep trying the argument "Two countries verses lots of countries!". Counting total units sold illustrates that the counting nations argument is illogical.

Either way, Wikipedia policy doesn't support either counting countries, or counting users, so those two points are really a side argument. (Unless it could be shown that one name was virtually unused, which is clearly not the case.) APL (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Good point. The inspiration for #15 (and #14) in the FAQ. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

You're incorrect, that is not the primary reason. That reason is ONLY designed as a tie breaker, if no consensus can be reached. What most people seem to want to know is WHY a consensus couldn't be reached. What reason is there to support Genesis? As you said the counting sales reason is invalid, so what is left? The original name is the only thing with a reason behind it, that's what the people who made it called it! <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 11:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The reliable resources, number of users using the name, the original name in English, the primary naming criteria, etc...basically what the FAQ says.LedRush (talk) 13:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Point 15 in the FAQ

I don't want to rile anyone up, I've done that enough in the past, but why does the fact that 'Sega Genesis' was the original title of the article have any bearing on what the title should be now? Point 15 is saying this is the main reason the article is titled thus, but this makes no logical sense as the original title can easily be wrong. If you're going by the 'originality' logic, surely that means that Mega Drive, as the 'original' title of the console (as invented by the Japanese and then released in that region) should be the title of this article? Like I said, I'm not trying to start an argument, it just seems illogical to me. Andre666 (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, perhaps that should be made clearer.

Basically, if we treat this purely as an issue with English variations, then the three ways to resolve the issue are (in this order) Commonality, nationality, "Retain"

-There's no hope of commonality without going to absurd names like "Fourth generation game console from Sega".

-The item's nationality is Japan, which is not an English speaking nation.

-WP:RETAIN says "When no English variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue, the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default"

Basically, this rule is an (only partially successful) attempt to stop people from wasting time arguing the matter in situations like this one, where neither option is better than the other. APL (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, the manual of style also makes it clear that once a variation is decided upon, it's to be used through the whole article, so our friend User:82.41.107.134 is committing a confusing-to-readers error when he tries to change certain mentions to "Mega-Drive". APL (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand his frustration though, but thanks for explaining it all above, makes sense I suppose as we'll never reach a truly accepted conclusion! Thanks for replying :) Andre666 (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR/WP:RETAIN only applies to the variety of English language used, not to differentiate between two English language names of something. This and so many others appear to attempts by people to deliberately misinterpret WP policies to bolster the case for Genesis. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 07:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Basically, the point of issue of the original title is that it's just one extra point in Genesis's favor -- in fact were Mega Drive the original title on WP it probably would have been enough to put it in MD's favor. Because both titles are equally valid, it's kind of used as a 'tiebreaker' (see, for instance, color vs. orange (colour). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

If I've said it once I've said it a thousand times; instead or arguing this tired, boring and completely resolved point over and over again why don't users like Andre666 (talk) use their time and energy to improve the quality of this article? Mike _talk 01:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, "Mike". I don't care too much for this point. This is a talk page, for people to discuss things they'd like changed to the article. If YOU don't like it, then YOU don't have to join in. I'm trying to be nice, I'm following the rules, so back off and let me discuss things I want to discuss. We are told off for reverting, fair enough, but now we're being told off for doing exactly what we're told to do?! Can't win. Andre666 (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Mike, if this were someone piping up with an argument that's already covered both in the faq and a million times in the talk archive, I'd totally agree with you.

However, it seems rude to criticize someone who was just asking for clarification of one of the points the FAQ makes.

After all, a clear understanding of what has been said before is important for preventing the time-wasting discussions you mention. APL (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you APL, except that Andre's argument IS already address in the FAQ. See 3rd paragraph of #1. See also the new #16. I suppose we can expand on the point made in that 3rd paragraph of #1. --B2C 16:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Title does not meet policy (Sega Genesis vs. Genesis)

WP:CRITERIA states an article title should have consistency. No other gaming console article I can find includes the name of the manufacturer unless it is part of the console's name, therefore a change seems to be in order. The only alternatives I can think of are 'Genesis' and 'Mega Drive'. You only have to look again at WP:CRITERIA and the Genesis disambig page to see that 'Genesis' is not suitable. 'Mega Drive' has no issues that I can see, as it meets all policy requirements. Any objections? <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 11:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Genesis is already taken. Genesis (video game console) isn't an improvement over Sega Genesis. And people do call it the Sega Genesis. Same reason we have Sega Saturn instead of calling it Saturn or Saturn (video game system). Dream Focus 15:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe Sega Saturn actually has Sega as part of the official name. We don't however title the articles Sega Dreamcast, Sony Playstation etc even though people also call them by those names. Why the exception here? <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 16:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME rears its head here, which states "When there is no single obvious term that is obviously the most frequently used for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering the criteria listed above." One thing (and about the only thing) that all the battling editors here do agree on is that the console title should be "Sega xxxxx" Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why you bring up WP:COMMONNAME, it can't possibly apply to titles which don't meet the basic criteria for a page title. "Sega xxx" fails the consistency test. If you are saying console manufacturers should always be included in the title then we have a lot of articles to rename. I note that in essence this decision has already been made. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 18:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I bring it up because – as has been discussed many, many many times over the last few years – the one thing that everybody here is happy with is including "Sega" in the title, regardless of what else it may contain. Even the bastardised "Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis" contained the term – twice no less.

I don't see anywhere that I'm "saying console manufacturers should always be included in the title" – I'm quite obviously referring only to this article in my discussion and saying that there is nothing wrong with the title "Sega Genesis" Or "Sega Megadrive" – but that's an argument I'm not going to poke (again). Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe this is covered in the backlogs somewhere. It is mostly referred to in sources as "Sega Genesis" where Mega Drive was mostly referred to as "Mega Drive". Since it's not the only Sega system to do this, it's not a big deviation--SexyKick 21:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC).

And today i stopped believing in the AMERICAN WIKIPEDIA. Congratulations, you lost a non-english reader with your US-centrism. 177.177.207.58 (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

There's no such thing as the American Wikipedia, so your loss of faith should be a good thing. Try adding in "Sorcerer" to any Harry Potter article, or changing "tyre" to "tire" in the Mclaren F1, or Bugatti Veyron article. See how quickly you get shot down as a Decadent Yankee Overlord™. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Choosing which rules apply and which don't simply so you can title an article using a name only known in North America is pretty much the definition of an American Wikipedia. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 11:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's get some things clear. Is your argument to remove the term "Sega" from the article "Sega Genesis" and leave it as "Genesis" – with a necessary suffix, such as "Genesis (video game console)", or are you saying that once we remove "Sega" from "Sega Genesis" the article name "Genesis" would be no longer appropriate, so you wish it to be renamed to "Mega Drive"?

Please also clarify why you think the article name "Genesis (video game console)" or similar is "not suitable"? I can see no reason why this would be the case. If you manage to convince me that the term "Sega" should be removed, (which you have not yet – but I am willing to listen to your arguments,) I will support you in your effort to rename to "Genesis (video game console)", much in the same way I was convinced to change my preference from "Mega Drive" to "Sega Genesis".

So far I have seen no argument (convincing or not) that we should follow the renaming logic of "Sega Genesis" -> "Genesis" (unsuitable, ergo an alternative must be sought) -> "Mega Drive"

I have no preference based on geographical location. My decisions are based on the intelligence and how the arguments are presented – so please – convince me as I'm listening. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not about following a chain from Sega Genesis to Genesis to Mega Drive, it's about choosing the most suitable from the myriad options. Sega should not be in the title because I see no evidence that it is part of the official name, sure it is often referred to as Sega Genesis, but many other systems such as the Playstation often have the manufacturer included when referred to in media.

It is true that the same has happened to the Saturn with Sega added to the front, but that is a concession, there is no 'good' alternative (other than "Saturn (gaming system)" or similar, which is equally unpleasant imo).

The same is not true here, there are several potential titles: "Genesis" fails on precision, "Sega Genesis" fails on consistency, "Genesis (blah blah)" fails on conciseness. Sure many (most?) articles on WP have to make some kind of concession, giving up one of the ideals, but we don't have to here because the only failure of "Mega Drive" is that the majority of editors are from North America. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 13:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think that based on your arguments, "Genesis (video game console)" is the best of the lot. It may not be the most consise, but it is the most descriptive and accurate. Fortunately, WP:CRITERIA takes this into account with:

• Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject will recognize.
• Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English.
• Precision – The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
• Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.

Ok, so it falls down somewhat on the last point of consistency, but luckily for us criteria takes this into account as well:

• It may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others. This is done by consensus.

And really, whether you like it or not, the Yankee American Decadent Capitalist Western Pig Dogs still have the consensus – and with this latest challenge a welcome exception, they are far more polite, restrained, and intelligent in their arguments. (Which is one of the reasons I personally favo(u)r "Genesis", as I refuse to be associated with the "Genesis suks man, rename to Meggadrive coz i dont know genesus and you yanks think you own the wurld" mentality.) Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I still feel Mega Drive has no pitfalls/therefore no reason to favour one goal over the others, but I agree the consensus will never agree. I don't mind so much if it stays with Genesis, what I can't stand is when people pretend the reason is anything other than the 'Murican majority. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 17:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I have a few comments regarding some of the statements above.

First, the "official" name of the topic is unimportant. What matters most in terms of deciding WP titles is what is used most commonly to refer to the topic in reliable sources – this is the essence of WP:COMMONNAME (and also the recognizability and naturalness WP:CRITERIA). A proposal to move to Genesis (video game console) needs to be supported with evidence that this topic is referred to as "Genesis" more often than as "Sega Genesis" in reliable sources. I have not seen such evidence.

Second, "Genesis (blah blah)" does not fail on conciseness. WP:CRITERIA such as conciseness mostly applies to the part of the title that does not include parenthetic disambiguation. If the most common name is "Genesis", then that's the concise name we use, then we disambiguate that per WP:D.

Third, the primary reason this title was restored to Sega Genesis has little if anything to do with "'Murican majority", and everything to do with that being the original title of this article. Restoring the original title is a common way to settle disputes about which of two reasonable titles to use, and that was a significant factor in this case. See FAQ #1. --B2C 17:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

This was in fact brought up by KieferSkunk during one of the previous move discussion.

"Comment: As it turns out, I can't find anything that definitively backs up my earlier comment that the North American name is just "Genesis" and not "Sega Genesis" – most of our official sources use the latter name and only shorten it to "Genesis" afterwards, just like they tend to shorten the full name of NES to the acronym after its first use. Even Nintendo's Virtual Console service, which offers Genesis games in North America, uses the title "Sega Genesis"."

It would have been crazy for all the amount of information we covered in those naming to discussions for this to have not been addressed before, and it has, and was concluded on. So Sega Mega-CD, Sega 32X, Sega Saturn, and Sega Genesis.--SexyKick 11:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Amazon for instance, also calls it the Sega Genesis, while calling the Wii, Wii. This isn't consistent across all the internet though. As GameFaqs calls the Sega systems, Sega Master System, Genesis, and Saturn. We could change the lead to be like the one in the Super NES article, and say "often shortened to Genesis" or something like that.--SexyKick 18:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I actually just did the opposite before I read this particular discussion. The most recent version I put up reads "The Genesis (often called the Sega Genesis) is [the console in North America]". Given the context here and your quote of my comment back in 2011, I'm thinking I should reverse the order like you suggested here. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Factual Error in opening sentence "Japan and PAL"

The sentence:

"The Sega Genesis, known as the Mega Drive (メガドライブ Mega Doraibu?) in Japan and PAL territories"

should really read something more like:

"The Sega Genesis, known as the Mega Drive (メガドライブ Mega Doraibu?) outside of North America"

Which sounds kind of backwards to me given the original and most widely used name is Mega Drive, it seems to me it would make more sense for it to be worded:

"The Sega Mega Drive (メガドライブ Mega Doraibu?), known as the Genesis in North America"

I should stress this isn't intended as a debate regarding the article title, it's simply the fact that the information as it is misleading and awkwardly worded. Parts of Europe use SECAM, not PAL; the Brazil version was PAL-M, which is a distinctly different system; and both PAL and NTSC versions were sold in Asia.

--85.211.134.202 (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The goal is usually to phrase the sentence as describing the article name. Otherwise it's a confusing intro.

"most widely used" is open to tedious debate anyway, unless you mean it in a strictly geographic sense. 75.69.10.209 (talk) 04:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand that, but unfortunately the sentence as it is right now is simply factually incorrect for the reasons I mentioned and needs re-worded one way or another. This is an encyclopaedia, and facts can't be glossed over just to make the wording roll off the tongue better. I'll admit I do think this is a consequence of the bizarre decision to name the article after a region-specific name for the console rather than the most widely used name (and yes, I do mean "most widely" as in geographical and in the sense it covers the majority of different iterations of the console, whilst "Genesis" only refers to one specific variant). But that's neither here nor there, I'm not arguing that the title be changed (I imagine I'd be wasting my time) but I am suggesting that the opening sentence needs to be edited to reflect actual fact. --85.211.134.202 (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not "factually incorrect" – the sentence doesn't necessarily claim that one name originally came first or anything like that. You're reading into it too much. Either wording works in theory, I'm pretty sure the main reason it is the way it is because it uses the article's name first. It would be awkward to use "Mega Drive" first if the article title is "Sega Genesis". (In almost every article, the opening word(s) are the article title... Sergecross73 msg me 19:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Please read what I said before commenting, Sergecross. As I said, and I quote: "Parts of Europe use SECAM, not PAL; the Brazil version was PAL-M, which is a distinctly different system; and both PAL and NTSC versions were sold in Asia." whilst the article merely states "The Sega Genesis, known as the Mega Drive (メガドライブ Mega Doraibu?) in Japan and PAL territories". Therefore the article is currently factually incorrect as the implication is it's only known as the Mega Drive in Japan and PAL territories, when it's known as the Mega Drive in SECAM, PAL-M and as as the Asian NTSC model in addition. If you actually read what I was saying, my suggestion was therefore to change "in Japan and PAL territories" to "outside of North America" (the only problem with that is it then sounds awkward and backwards, but that was a side issue). What part of that do you not grasp? --85.211.134.202 (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't understand how your proposed change addresses this though? Your proposal only changes the order of the systems. It seems like the more logical solution to your issue would to merely add more regions that use Mega Drive or something. (On the assumption that something needs to be done. I don't see any need for action personally, it's merely covering the major regions as it is typically done on VG related articles.) And again, like I, and the IP who first responded to you said, it would be rather confusing to have the very first item mentioned in the article not match the article's name. That's a project-wide consistency thing. Sergecross73 msg me 20:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, please try reading what I said more carefully before jumping the gun. I quite clearly stated in my original comment in this section that my suggestion was

The sentence:

"The Sega Genesis, known as the Mega Drive (メガドライブ Mega Doraibu?) in Japan and PAL territories"

should really read something more like:

"The Sega Genesis, known as the Mega Drive (メガドライブ Mega Doraibu?) outside of North America"

I'm really struggling to make it any more clear and concise to you, so that you'll actually understand. It's also quite shocking that you don't have an issue with the way it's written at present when it's literally incorrect and misleading. I can't believe your preference for the name "Genesis" over "Mega Drive" apparently trumps all other issues, including accuracy and factual correctness. --85.211.134.202 (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, you haven't so much explained three times as you've just copy and pasted the same thing over and over again. Additionally, your point is confusing, because as soon you propose what you said above, you add in your bit about "Which sounds kind of backwards to me given the original and most widely used name is Mega Drive, it seems to me it would make more sense for it to be worded: "The Sega Mega Drive (メガドライブ Mega Doraibu?), known as the Genesis in North America". That makes it look like the one where you say "Mega Drive" first is your proposal. Then you fill the rest of your posts with all these "OMG this guy don't get it!" type garbage and before you know it, your whole point is lost. Sergecross73 msg me 20:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I've had to copy it three times because there really is no way to put it more clearly. I really don't think it's my failing here that's the reason for your lack of understanding. It's quite obvious that my suggestion is to change "Japan and PAL" to "outside North America", and the awkward wording that results is a further side issue that may or may not also need addressing by putting "Mega Drive" first. Am I safe to assume you get it now, and are satisfied with the suggestion we change "Japan and PAL" to "outside North America" (as that's clearly more accurate and straightforward)? --85.211.134.202 (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it was pretty clear and acceptable to me. I didn't quite understand what the confusion was. ^^--SexyKick 23:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

We shouldn't ignore the point just because the IP editor is being a bit hostile.

I've changed it to "outside of North America", which, if nothing else, is an easier read that has less jargon in it. APL (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou, APL. My only remaining concern is that the syntax now seems bizarre – to place a single variant as the primary subject of the sentence then all other versions secondary – but I realise that it may have to remain that way as an unfortunate consequence of using "Sega Genesis" as the article's title, rather than the international name "Sega Mega Drive. At least the article is now factually correct, which is the main issue, and what was bothering me most. --85.211.134.202 (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I just removed the "of" as it seems to break the flow of the sentence. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Another minor niggle but the article now reads "The Sega Genesis, known as the Mega Drive (メガドライブ Mega Doraibu?) outside North America, is a home video game console released by Sega on October 29, 1988." That makes it sound as though it was released on that date under the name "Genesis" because the sentence is essentially saying "The Genesis was released on [this date]" with the "known as" forming a sidenote within the wording, if you follow me. There wasn't actually any console released by the name of Genesis until August 14, 1989. The best rewording I can come up with would be along the lines of replacing:

The Sega Genesis, known as the Mega Drive (メガドライブ Mega Doraibu?) outside North America, is a home video game console released by Sega on October 29, 1988. The reason for the two names is that Sega was unable to secure legal rights to the Mega Drive name in North America.

with:

The Sega Genesis, known as the Mega Drive (メガドライブ Mega Doraibu?) outside North America, is a home video game console released by Sega. Initially on October 29, 1988 in Japan as the Mega Drive, and then later in North America as the Genesis (as Sega was unable to secure legal rights to the Mega Drive name in North America), and finally in Europe and Brazil as the Mega Drive.

--85.211.134.202 (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

That information is all available elsewhere in the article. We shouldn't try to cram too many details into the opening paragraph.

The paragraph as written, is factually correct. The system (Known as different things in different territories) was first released on October 29, 1988. The details of the roll-out are just that, details. APL (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

True, but if we can address this without making it worse, it would be an improvement. I tried[1]. --B2C 00:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I realise that, but I still think the edit I've suggested is sufficiently succinct whilst being a lot more precise and less misleading than what's currently there. It's not ideal though, I know. I still think it's a bordering on being incorrect to state "The Genesis was released on October 29. 1988" when no console by that name existed until later. It's also not quite "known as different things in different territories" really, that implies a larger deal of variation when it's known as the Sega Mega Drive everywhere except one territory, that's an important distinction, I feel. Obviously the most precise and straightforward way to word it would be something like:

The Sega Mega Drive (known as the Genesis in North America, where Sega was unable to secure legal rights to the Mega Drive name) is a home video game console released on October 29, 1988.

Of course, the problem with that is it puts the Mega Drive name before the Genesis one, which given the article's current title isn't really tenable. The obvious solution would be to just change the article's heading to the console's original and international name – "Sega Mega Drive"; but there's a lot of hostility towards that for various reason. --85.211.134.202 (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence, to me, is still awkwardly long. We're trying to get too much information into the lead sentence, where short and simple may make better sense. I think a potential solution that eliminates the order discussion would be as follows:

The Sega Genesis is a home video game console designed by Sega. First released in 1988 in Japan as the Mega Drive (メガドライブ, Mega Doraibu), the console was exported to North America in 1989 where it was renamed Genesis as Sega was unable to secure legal rights to the Mega Drive name there. When the console entered new markets in 1990, Sega began using the Mega Drive name again.

The sentences are factual and in chronological order, while keeping the key information in place (that it was first released in Japan as Mega Drive, first exported to North America as Genesis and later released again as MD). I agree that the lead should be a summary, hitting high spots but not covering every detail.

--McDoobAU93 18:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, McDoobAU93. Would I be right in assuming you're talking about my proposed edit? It sounds like you're talking about the existing article, but what you're describing is what my edit would do (state the basic key information, and clear up the ambiguity of the existing sentence). --85.211.134.202 (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a bit of both ... it addresses the current format of the lead sentence and your point as well about keeping the information factually accurate, yet not setting up the article for yet another name change discussion. --McDoobAU93 19:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused. Per my edit from yesterday, this is the latest revision of the lead sentence:

The Sega Genesis is a home video game console released on October 29, 1988 by Sega as the Mega Drive (メガドライブ, Mega Doraibu), the name it is known as outside North America.

Is anyone seeking to change this? If so, why? --B2C 19:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Nah, I'm fine with that. --85.211.134.202 (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Per other discussions going on recently, Despatche and I did a bit more work on the intro, and I think what we have now addresses the issues described here consistently and fairly. This version is still based on "Sega Genesis" as the title (the title itself is still being debated, but while we have a title, we may as well make the prose match it as best we can).

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

— KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Rename Suggestion

I propose we rename the article to "Sega Mega Drive/Genesis" this should suit all parties and is an accurate title, what do you all think? 94.172.127.37 (talk) 07:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

This discussion was already had. Check the archives. A large number of people already participated in the discussion, consensus was established. Dream Focus 10:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Well reading over the archives we have had years of people disagreeing with the current name, so a small minority reaching a consensus at one point of time is outweighed by the amount of people who have disagreed with such a decision94.172.127.37 (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

That's how ENGVAR issues go. If the American version is used, the Americans don't even notice that there's a debate, and the Brits all come and complain. If the British version is used, the brits don't notice there's a debate and the Americans show up to complain.

That's why the policy is to use the first variant used. Because if you open if for debate it'll keep going back and forth for no good reason.

(Hybrid names like "Gas/Petrol" are also not used.)

You have to remember, that there are lots of articles with name disputes. There's nothing unusual about this article's naming issues. APL (talk) 05:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

This isn't an ENGVAR issue though, nor an issue of Americans and "Brits", or anything comparable to gas versus petrol. It's about a product's actual name. Not just a preference over a common term. --85.211.203.66 (talk) 06:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there was a consensus actually, which is why the reasoning for changing it to Genesis relied on the revert back to what the article was originally called argument. All the other arguments in favour of using Genesis(no. 7 in the FAQ) are bunk. I'll address them:

1) It's claimed that "Sega Genesis" is better than "Mega Drive", as it follows the pattern of Sega consoles being named "Sega [something]". However the Mega Drive was always commonly known as the "Sega Mega Drive" just as much as the Genesis was known as the "Sega Genesis". So that argument falls flat, and if the article were to be named using the Mega Drive name, then the obvious think to do would be the name the article "Sega Mega Drive".

2) "The compound title was untenable". I fail to see why. I don't have a problem with a compound title if people feel the North American name is significant enough to be worthy of inclusion in the heading, but if people are really against a compound title, then "Sega Mega Drive" (the original and international name of the product) gets priority over "Genesis".

3) No evidence for Genesis having higher amount of usage in English language sources. Most Sega websites/wikis/etc. use the "Sega Mega Drive" term over the Genesis one.

It should also be noted that although this is the English Wikipedia, that doesn't mean it only applies to English-speaking nations – it applies to English-speaking people regardless of country. And the English Wikipedia still gets far more visitors than the localised versions do, even in the country of the language the localised version is catering for. In short, the English Wikipedia is the international Wikipedia, not just a localised version of English speaking countries, and with that in mind this article is catering not just to people in the UK, Australia, New Zealand and North America, but also to people in continental Europe, Japan, Asia, Brazil – all of whom will know the console as the "Sega Mega Drive". --85.211.203.66 (talk) 05:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm kind of busy this morning, but one thing jumps out at me straight away:

3) Stop looking through rose-tinted glasses. Where are your sources to back up such a claim? You are aware that Wikipedia relies on sources aren't you? For example, Gamefaqs – one of the oldest and largest gamers resources around, refers to the console as "Genesis" The exact opposite of your claim was one of the over-riding factors in the naming convention staying with Genesis. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Gamefaqs – a US-based website calls it the Genesis – whilst CVG and sega.wikia, for instance, call it the Mega Drive. We could both go back and forth quoting sources all day, but that isn't going to be conclusive proof either way of what the most common name is. I still highly suspect it's Mega Drive, and in my experience most websites call it such. If this was one of the over-riding factors in calling it Genesis then it just supports my point that the arguments in favour of Genesis are bunk, since trying to prove which term is more commonly used either way is nigh-on impossible. --85.211.203.66 (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure we're all glad that you don't have a problem with the compound name. However a large number of previously uninvolved editors felt it was against policy and a bad precedent.

85.211 said : "We could both go back and forth quoting sources all day, but that isn't going to be conclusive proof either way of what the most common name is."

Exactly. What waste of time that would be. APL (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Right so if we can't conclude which name is more commonly used, then we have to discount that as an argument in favour or either "Mega Drive" or "Genesis", agreed? So my point about the arguments in favour of Genesis not standing up are valid. I'm also quite happy not to use a compound name, but only in favour of "Mega Drive", not "Genesis". I'm willing to be reasonable and compromise either way on this as long as the console's original and international name is included in the title. It's the hardheaded proponents of calling the article "Genesis" and nothing else that are being unreasonable and illogical here. --85.211.203.66 (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

According to policy, if a "common name" can't be determined, you just leave it where it is, or change it to the article's oldest name.

The policy is not designed to find the "Best" name, it's designed to find a name that works, and then discourage people from wasting time changing it. APL (talk) 09:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

But as I said in another section, the oldest non-stub name was "Sega Megadrive" not "Sega Genesis". In any case you keep switching the subject; my point was merely that the arguments in favour of Genesis in the FAQ are invalid and should be discounted. So the sole reason in favour of "Genesis" is the fact it's the oldest used title, although again that was as a stub. --85.211.203.66 (talk) 09:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:TITLECHANGES states:

"Changing one controversial title to another is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. If it has never been stable, or it 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."

The last revision of Sega Genesis, prior to being moved to Sega Megadrive certainly looks like a stub to me [2], and was very early in Wikipedia's lifetime, having only had a handful of edits made since its creation. After that, the article remained at "Sega Megadrive", "Sega Mega Drive", or simply "Mega Drive" for several years, during which time it ceased to be a stub. Since those three names are simply minor variations of one another I would suggest that WP:TITLECHANGES actually specifies that one of those names should be chosen for the article, as that was the first name used when the article ceased to be a stub. --85.211.203.66 (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

You're really stretching.

It's long enough to be non-stub, especially back in 2003 when lots of articles were that short.

It contains technical information, and background material.

Only one source, true, but back in 2003 that wasn't uncommon.

The reason everyone doesn't want to reopen this issue is because it would be a giant pointless debate with no easy way to settle it except by voting (USA would win that, of course.), so how does this help? Trying to declare that the 2003 article is a stub would not be uncontroversial, so you haven't simplified the debate at all, you've just made it more complex, which makes us even less eager to reopen the naming issue!

APL (talk) 09:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Well it seems unequivocally to be a stub to me, especially when compared to later revisions under "Sega Megadrive" only a few months later. --85.211.203.66 (talk) 09:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, looking like a stub "to you" doesn't count for much, just as if I were to say it looks like a Start-class article doesn't count for much. In the reach for some reason to get the article renamed, editors keep forgetting that the console's first name is not Mega Drive, but メガドライブ. In romanized form, it is more accurately presented as Mega Doraibu, but it is just as accurately romanized into Mega Drive. Even if the name is derived from two English words, the name is still Japanese. Thus the COMMONNAME criteria, the name of the object the first time it was released in an English-speaking region, would hold, and that's Genesis. --McDoobAU93 18:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Hah. Too bad we can't leave the article at its original name of メガドライブ, thereby frustrating Americans and British equally. APL (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

You're forgetting one thing – it was stable for many years, as Mega Drive, before it was changed to the last compound name. The only reason proponents get around that rule is because they have managed to change the definition of stable from "not changing" to "not debated". <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 17:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

85.211, Think about what would happen if we agreed with you. We wouldn't just change the article on your say-so. We would re-open the debate. Gamers from all over Wikipedia would be invited to participate. Unless one 'side' or the other had a really convincing argument, and I don't just mean a correct argument, I mean an argument that's so correct that everyone agrees instantly, it would just come down to a popularity contest and a thinly veiled vote. How do you think that vote would go?

Now think about the consequences of having a "wrong" title. Searches still work. Everyone finds the article they're looking for. The only negative consequence would be that some people would be confused for the length of time it takes them to read the first sentence of the article.

What you're proposing is that we spend a lot of time and energy on a debate that probably won't change anything to fix a problem that has almost no negative consequences anyway. APL (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

If you were as nonchalent about the article's name as you pretend, then you wouldn't be objecting to it on that principle, because you simply wouldn't have to participate if you had no interest in the outcome. The fact is you have a personal interest in seeing the article remain at "Sega Genesis" why is why you're so hostile to a debate on the topic, even when there's a very good argument to be made for changing it, and the fact most of the arguments in favour of Genesis are flawed (as I pointed out). --85.211.203.66 (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

If you check the contributions of the two IP addresses in this discussion Special:Contributions/85.211.203.66 Special:Contributions/94.172.127.37 you'll find their few edits involve this issue. Most likely someone didn't get their way last time, so are trying to distort things and start this argument all over again, as often happens on Wikipedia. Probably the same guy with both IP addresses. Dream Focus 01:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure about that – certainly not to a quack quack level. The ip's locate to Bradford and Mauchline – and are operated by Virgin & Tiscali. I suppose it's possible it's a tag team effort, but even so I think it's just more likely to be coincidental Stiff Upper Lip Imperialism vs Decadent Yankee Pigs. As usual. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I've never been involved in the Mega Drive versus Genesis debate before, not do I have any affiliation with the other IP. --85.211.203.66 (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, you're not exactly impartial or espousing a neutral POV when it comes to matters like this yourselfUser:Dream Focus#The American spelling of something is always the best, Dream Focus. --85.211.203.66 (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

"Less letters in words give our office workers an advantage over you, since they have less letters to type, and thus get things done faster." Obviously I was joking there. Dream Focus 18:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Bad grammar

"lays flat on the floor" should be "lies flat on the floor". I can't edit the article so please fix. 86.147.75.228 (talk) 08:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Done Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Temporary Removal of the FAQ

Considering some editors – including myself – take issue with some claims made in the FAQ, and since the title is currently up for debate (the main purpose of the FAQ seemingly being to prevent such discussion) perhaps it should be temporarily removed from the talk page until consensus is formed and then reinstated with the necessary alterations. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not. It represents the previous consensus on this article. It is absolutely relevant to the current debate.

The fact that you "take issue" with it is obvious. Of course you disagree with the previous consensus, that's why you started an RFC. APL (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I mean actual claims made in the FAQ are factually incorrect or otherwise illogical. Other editors have pointed out the same thing. To give just one example, the FAQ currently states "Sega Genesis" was found to meet the primary naming criteria better than "Mega Drive". While it was basically a wash on most of the criteria, the consistency criterion clearly favored Sega Genesis over Mega Drive because most other Sega console articles are name "Sega Something"

This is wrong for a number of reasons:

• 1 – "Mega Drive" could just as easily be titled "Sega Mega Drive", thus completely nullifying this as an argument in favour of "Sega Genesis".

• 2 – "Sega" does not form part of the console's official name in North America anyway, this according to most Wikipedia naming conventions "Sega" shouldn't even be in there – as KieferSkunk has argued above.

• 3 – Not all Sega consoles have "Sega" prefixed to them, e.g. the Dreamcast.

Therefore that argument has no place in the FAQ, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Since there's no obvious consensus in favour of Genesis and the FAQ's intended purpose is to stifle debate, it's not unreasonable for it to be temporarily removed until the matter is settled. The only motivation I can see for keeping it would be by those who favour the Genesis title and want to do just that, and hinder an open discussion.

--85.211.130.47 (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the FAQ says that up is down. It was based on consensus and is therefore relevant. APL (talk) 23:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You're mistaken. Just because the FAQ supposedly represented consensus at one time doesn't mean it is infallible and immune from scrutiny. That's not how it works. Born2cycle already mentioned previously that the FAQ can be addressed by editors that feel it necessary. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 23:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. The previous consensus is not infallible. That's why this debate exits.

However, the previous consensus is still relevant until it is replaced by a new one.

It is especially relevant during the debate.

Many editors have already referenced the FAQ in the RFC, trying to hide it now would be make those people's arguments harder to follow and would therefore be dishonest. APL (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

If all they've done is reference the FAQ without further comment, then their arguments are basically disregarded anyway, especially considering the FAQ is demonstrably fallible and full of inconsistencies and falsehoods. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

PErhaps, but that is a decision that must wait until the current debate is concluded. Clearly it's not honest to let people reference the FAQ and then hide it. APL (talk) 23:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

But the converse of that is it's not honest (to either side, as it damages the arguments of those who do reference the FAQ) to let people reference it when it's known to be factually incorrect. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You're begging the question. You're taking as fact that the FAQ is wrong, but that's what you're here to prove. APL (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Not really. The FAQ can be wrong without having to demonstrate that "Genesis" is the wrong title. I mean, to make a ridiculous example, if the FAQ were to claim the Mega Drive was released as "Genesis" everywhere except North America and that's why it was the name used for the article, would you still be saying the onus was on deciding on the name change before the issues of falsehoods in the FAQ can be addressed? The fact the FAQ contains demonstrably false information (which is undeniably does) is something that can and should be addressed on it's own merit, completely outside the issue of the name debate. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 23:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. If there was previously a consensus that some ridiculous fact was true, I would still say that the FAQ was a useful record of the consensus and should remain until we formed a new consensus. (Luckily, in such a ridiculous case, the new consensus would form quickly. Unluckily, in the current case, consensus will be hard to form.) APL (talk) 23:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

85.211: I think you're missing APL's point here. The FAQ is there to explain what happened in previous debates. You have to exercise some level of good faith when reading it. That people decided Sega Genesis was the proper name is a fact. That people cited the existence of other articles prefixed with "Sega" as a reason to use "Sega Genesis" is also a fact. Whether these were the correct decisions (based on opinions, straw-poll votes, or strict readings of WP policies) is not relevant, and it's not a reason to remove the FAQ. I agree with APL and Serge here, that the FAQ should not be taken down or altered until and unless a new consensus is formed. People will point to the FAQ to point out what previous decisions were made, technically correct or not, because that's what the FAQ is there for. If that's the only backup they give for their opinions, then obviously they don't see a reason to change their minds from last time they were here. (Or for people who are new to the debate, they happen to agree with prior decisions.) That doesn't make their opinions any less valid. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not that bothered about it staying, but I disagree that it doesn't make their opinions less valid. If their sole argument is "I agree with the FAQ" when the FAQ contains things that are factually incorrect (which it does) then that does make their opinion less valid and carry less weight. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 00:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Given that I was personally involved in several of the prior debates and consensus discussions that led to the formation of that FAQ, I can vouch for the FAQ being factually correct with respect to the decisions that were made at the time. That people decided "Sega Genesis" met naming policies at the time is a fact. Whether the name "Sega Genesis" actually complies with policies now is irrelevant – it could in fact not, and maybe that's because something in the policy has changed since then. But the FAQ still accurately depicts what decisions were made at the time, and it accurately shows how this article has evolved over time. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand that, and yes you could argue the FAQ is technically accurate as it's merely stating what the conclusions made at the time were, even if those conclusions are clearly false. But that's really semantics. It still ultimately means that the arguments in the FAQ supporting Genesis are incorrect, and therefore people saying "I agree with the FAQ" and nothing more, are diminishing their own position by basically agreeing with arguments that are easily recognised to be wrong, or at least wrong now. It's akin to saying "I agree with this factually disproven argument", it basically renders your argument void. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 01:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay then, you at this point need to go into more detail about what's wrong with the FAQ and why. We clearly disagree on whether there's anything wrong with it, at least beyond a few minor miswordings that could be more clearly stated. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Well it's full of blatantly incorrect/unverified statements. For example Point 14 states: "But shouldn't Mega Drive be favored since Genesis was used in only two countries, while Mega Drive was used in many? But many more units were sold in those two (North American) countries than in all the others." You and I both know that at best the sources for sales show an approximate 50% split between Genesis and Mega Drive, and that these figures are contested, so to flat out state that more units were sold in North America than the rest of the world combined is misleading to put it mildly. If people are just claiming they agree with the FAQ – and therefore acknowledged falsehoods like this – without further elaboration then it seems to me their opinions are completely discredited. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 01:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I also take issue with this statement "While "Mega Drive" was the original name, it was used mostly in countries where English is not the primary language. The vast majority of English-speaking users of the console are in North America where the name used is "Sega Genesis", which is what matters in the English Wikipedia." this makes the incorrect assumption that users who's first language isn't English are non-English speakers, which we all know isn't the case. Many Europeans, Asians and South Americans speak English fluently as a second-language and use the English Wikipedia. I would say there is zero evidence for the claim that "The vast majority of English-speaking users of the console are in North America", and I think it simply can't be proven either way which version has the most English speaking users. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 01:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

And while the discussion is ongoing, let's not delete what we don't like, please? --McDoobAU93 15:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Definitely not, unless/until consensus changes. Sergecross73 msg me 00:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Falsehoods in the FAQ

The FAQ contains a number of statements which over the course of debate have been found to be demonstrably incorrect. I believe consensus has been reached that these facts are incorrect, and therefore the FAQ requires modification or a disclaimer on this point – especially considering editors are using the argument "as per the FAQ" without elaboration in the debate over the article naming issue, effectively discounting their views. Here are the main issues, with excerpts from the FAQ in bold, and my notes underneath each point.

""Sega Genesis" was found to meet the primary naming criteria better than "Mega Drive". While it was basically a wash on most of the criteria, the consistency criterion clearly favored Sega Genesis over Mega Drive because most other Sega console articles are name "Sega Something".[5] Also, some argued that in the English speaking world Sega Genesis was more recognizable and natural than Mega Drive, and no one argued the reverse."

We've established this is wrong for a number of reasons:

• 1 – "Mega Drive" could just as easily be titled "Sega Mega Drive", thus completely nullifying this as an argument in favour of "Sega Genesis".

• 2 – "Sega" does not form part of the console's official name in North America anyway, this according to most Wikipedia naming conventions "Sega" shouldn't even be in there – as KieferSkunk has argued above.

• 3 – Not all Sega consoles have "Sega" prefixed to them, e.g. the Dreamcast.

"WP:Commonname indicates "Sega Genesis" because it arguably had the most usage in English language reliable sources;"

We've established there's no definitive way to prove this one way or the other. So it's equally valid to state that "Mega Drive" has arguably the most English usage.

""Sega Genesis" was the name used when the console was first released in an English speaking market (which is relevant because the naturalness criterion says titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English, and, again, original usage is important per WP:TITLECHANGES)."

Less clear-cut but several editors have been arguing that the release in Japan with the "Mega Drive" moniker qualifies as the first usage of the International (English) name for the console. Yes, "Genesis" was the first term used when released in a native-English speaking market, but "Mega Drive" is the first English term used for the console. To say "Mega Drive" is a Japanese name, despite it clearly being English words and the name used in other English-speaking territories, purely because it was released in Japan first is a dishonest argument and abuse of a technicality to get around the spirit of Wikipedia policy on article names.

"WP:NOCONSENSUS and WP:TITLECHANGES say... that when consensus cannot be achieved for a title that has been unstable for a long time, to use the title the article had when it ceased being a stub."

It is debatable that the article wasn't a stub when it was still known as Genesis. Is there a consensus on this point that this was the first name used when the article was no longer a stub?

"While "Mega Drive" was the original name, it was used mostly in countries where English is not the primary language. The vast majority of English-speaking users of the console are in North America where the name used is "Sega Genesis", which is what matters in the English Wikipedia."

We've established that users from nations where English isn't the native language does not automatically equate them as non-English-speaking users, which this point relies on. This is not the "English-speaking nations Wikipedia" it's the English language Wikipedia, and that includes English-speaking users from countries where English is the not the native language such as the countries of continental Europe, Brazil, Japan, Asia, South America, etc. where the console was known as "Mega Drive". There is no actual evidence to suggest more English-speaking users know the console as "Genesis" than English-speaking users that know it as "Mega Drive", so this point is conjecture and original research at best and flat-out incorrect at worst.

"In addition, the console sold far more units in North America as "Sega Genesis" than in other English speaking countries as "Sega Mega Drive"."

This is one of the most obvious examples of outright falsehood in the FAQ. The established consensus is that the sources – which are non-official, and of which the accuracy is not reliable – indicate an approximate 50% split between units sold as "Genesis" in North America and as "Mega Drive" in the rest of the world. That in no way verifies the statement that "far more units [were sold] in North America as "Sega Genesis" than in other English speaking countries as "Sega Mega Drive" (see the previous point as to what constitutes as English-speaking). --85.211.130.47 (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not false at all if you have any grasp of logic or math. If roughly 50% were sold in North America as Genesis and roughly 50% were sold outside of North America as Mega Drive, then it's impossible for more to have been sold as Mega Drive in English speaking countries unless almost none at all were sold in non English speaking countries, which is absurd.76.226.131.138 (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Please read what I said again. It doesn't matter if the units were sold in countries where English isn't the native language, that has no bearing on whether or not those users can speak English. As I've said multiple times now many people in various countries speak English, this is their Wikipedia as much as it is those to whom English is a native language. This is not the native-English speaking nation Wikipedia. Also, what you're doing there – using two distinct pieces of information 1) 50% of units were sold in North America, 2) assuming (even correctly) that means the other 50% were dispersed between English-speaking countries and non-English speaking countries then coming to the conclusion that you do even though there's no specific source to verify it is original research and WP:SYNTH. Doing this isn't permitted. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for stating your opinions as to the issues with the FAQ. At this point, I don't believe anything has been "established" just because you said it is. Consensus has agreed with the FAQ, and it's now up to you to state your points, provide proof of those points and to let consensus form around either the FAQ as-is, a modified FAQ or no FAQ at all. As I stated on my talk page, I'm taking a time-out from the debate. But when I saw what you had done to the FAQ, which is very clearly dirty pool during such discussions, I felt it was time to act. --McDoobAU93 15:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

If you read the discussion above it's apparent there's consensus on the points where I've said there is. The burden of proof does not lie solely on me, as where I've contested a point, it is also up to you to demonstrate there is consensus for it. The FAQ is attempting to make claims which can be verified or not, and therefore that is where the burden lies. I'm not attempting to claim anything other than these claims are disputed or unverifiable – that does not require a burden of proof. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm adding a disclaimer to the FAQ, which merely states that its content is disputed (which it verifiably is, as I'm disputing it). The disclaimer does not make any definitive claims that the FAQ is incorrect or misleading. This is a valid compromise to the issue for now, and I consider it disruptive and a sign of bad faith to remove it. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Consensus takes two forms: by discussion and by editing. When consensus formed around Sega Genesis, the FAQ was developed to explain why it was done. Since that time, the FAQ has been edited, with content added and removed by community discussion, to better explain what's going on. Its continued inclusion indicates the editing community believes it is both accurate and appropriate. As the challenger to consensus, the burden is completely on you to prove it's wrong. You've stated your opinions, and now it's time for the discussion to take place and see what happens. Until then, please leave the FAQ alone. I'm OK with a neutral notice on the FAQ, and I've modified your inclusion to a statement that is 100% neutral and accurate ... that a discussion is taking place, with no statement as to what the discussion is. --McDoobAU93 16:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're just wrong on this point. SEE WP:V, if you make unverified claims – as the FAQ does, then it can and should be contested unless there are sources to verify its accuracy. That is the case regardless of whether or not you feel those statements have consensus. The burden is on you to demonstrate those claims are verifiable and consensus-based, not on me to somehow disprove them. This is broken logic, for instance I could make up any false non-verified statement I like and the put the onus on you to disprove it, which simply wouldn't be possible given the lack of sources, that's why the burden is on those making the claim, not the party questioning it. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 16:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Because it's still here, it proves the community believes it's accurate. This is consensus by editing. Consensus indicates that the information provided is reasonable and encyclopedic, and yes, it is possible for consensus to form around ideas and information that isn't verbatim supported by a published document. You feel the information is not reasonable, thus it's on you to prove your points and to convince others through debate and discussion that you're correct. --McDoobAU93 16:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

No again the burden is not on me. You've linked WP:BURDEN several times now, but have you actually read it? It states quite clearly: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material." (emphasis in the original), therefore the burden is on you – as the party restoring the material to provide evidence, not on the party questioning/removing the material. Therefore can you provide sources to verify the points in the FAQ that I have questioned? If not, then they need to be discounted.

You're also using flawed circular logic; you're claiming the fact these points are still in the FAQ proves the community believes they're accurate (which doesn't make them verifiable in any case), but when these points are challenged, as I've just done and shown to be demonstrably unverified and incorrect, you're refusing to allow them to be altered regardless. Therefore your circular logic stipulates that since the FAQ can never be altered, it can never be said to be believed inaccurate in your view, and therefore can never be altered. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, your statement "and yes, it is possible for consensus to form around ideas and information that isn't verbatim supported by a published document." demonstrates a lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works, as this is the exact opposite of Wikipedia policy, e.g. WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:TRUTH. I believe you've already had it pointed out to you by an administrator on your talkpage that your previous arguments have come close to violating SYNTH and OR before, as well as your demands falling outside WP:BURDEN before too, see User talk:McDoobAU93#You are being unnecessarily combative --85.211.130.47 (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

85.211, you're getting out of hand here. I asked McDoob to calm down because, frankly, you were getting under his skin and I didn't think he was responding in the most constructive manner. But you seem to be egging him on at this point, and that's not going to stand. Yes, the FAQ has some flawed wording in it, but you seem to think that you have the power to claim something is "factually proven", and that anyone who disagrees with you must go out of their way to prove it. Demands for proof on EITHER side of this debate are inappropriate when given in the form both of you have at one point or another.

The way I see it, you can either work with us on a constructive solution, or you can keep trying to subjugate everything because it doesn't fit perfectly into your viewpoint. The latter will likely get you blocked again for contentious editing and incivility if you're not careful. Consider this a warning. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, trying to claim something is factually proven is the opposite of what I'm trying to do. I'm claiming that that statements made in the FAQ are actually lacking verification and that the sources used in the article don't back up those claims. I'm not trying to make any claims of my own, so there is no burden of proof on me, as I have nothing to prove. I was pointing out to McDoobAU93 this, as he was repeatedly linking me to WP:BURDEN which actually backs up my claim that the onus is on those adding or restoring the content to provide verification – not on the party that disputes it. If you'll read my points I think this issue is more than just flawed wording – it specifically makes claims that are without any evidence for them being the case, and claims that you yourself have disputed in the article name debate. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Then explain this statement, which you left last night just before I went home: "If their sole argument is 'I agree with the FAQ' when the FAQ contains things that are factually incorrect (which it does) then that does make their opinion less valid and carry less weight." -- That certainly seems like a statement that the FAQ is *wrong*, not just that the FAQ has unverified statements in it. Unverified statements can still be correct statements, but you have gone beyond that and are claiming that it contains "blatant falsehoods". In the very next reply from you in that same thread, you went on to say that someone agreeing with the FAQ is "akin to saying 'I agree with this factually disproven argument'". NONE of the arguments in the FAQ have been "factually disproven" – they have been DISPUTED, yes, but you are not the sole judge of what is fact and what is opinion here, and trying to put yourself in that position demonstrates a severe misunderstanding of the consensus process. THAT is why you're being warned to step back and change your approach – not only is this moving away from constructive discussion to outright disruption, but it's starting to make tempers flare, and I for one would like to see that stop.

I'm a firm believer that everyone's opinions are valid and deserve consideration. But remember: Until you show proof, in the form of either a Wikipedia policy that has been violated, or a documented, reliable source that refutes a claim, you cannot say that that claim has been "factually disproven" and expect people to just take your word for it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

PS: Before you start arguing over semantics of "factually proven" vs. "factually disproven", consider that "proven" and "disproven" have to do with showing proof either direction in a debate. You have not actually produced a source that disproves any claims given in the article or the FAQ – only stated (many times) that such sources exist. The WP:BURDEN is on you to point out where and why the FAQ is wrong, since your contention that it's wrong goes against current consensus. That is why we keep telling YOU to "prove it" – it's not our job to do your homework for you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I assure you tempers aren't flared on my part, or intended to produce that result in anyone else. My repeated attempts to explain my argument and policy to McDoobAU93 were just that, as he seemed to be misinterpreting. I'm also not sure what you think I'm attempting to do here which is in violation of policy or consensus, I'm discussing the issues with the FAQ in an attempt to resolve them and fix them as a community, and in the meantime have placed a disclaimer there. Yes, my statement that parts of the FAQ were "factually incorrect" were misplaced, and my opinion rather than verifiable fact, but also taken out of context. What I'm meaning by "factually incorrect" is that these claims are being made as facts, but they have no evidence supporting them, not that the information itself is incorrect per se (which is irrelevant, as per WP:NOTTRUTH). Again, there is no way I can provide evidence to backup my dispute, because my entire dispute is that we don't have the evidence to make these claims one way or the other. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 17:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You claimed just above here that the sources we're using in the article seem to contradict some of the claims being made in the FAQ, so evidently there's SOMETHING that you can point us to that says a point in the FAQ is wrong. Eg. sales figures: We already know that there are no clear sales records on the Mega Drive/Genesis, and that multiple different sources give different numbers for how many were sold worldwide and in the US. Since you've pointed out that the corresponding part of the FAQ claims a specific figure, perhaps we need to go fix that. That's fine. I still consider that a minor problem.

Also, to bring this whole thing full-circle: While you have been claiming that the FAQ is wrong or unverified, you haven't actually brought any new sources or information to your side of the argument that back up your own claims. It's not just enough to point out that a consensus FAQ is incorrect or unproven if you want consensus to change. All that will do is get people to figure out how to fix the issues (which itself is constructive and desired, since we want Wikipedia to be accurate in all cases). But since you're actively trying to convince everyone that the FAQ (and the subject as a whole) is actually wrong, you need to come to the table with data to back up your side. There's a lot of conjecture on your end (and to be fair, a lot on the other side as well), but not much real substance. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

PS: Yes, "factually disproven" was a poor choice of words for what I meant. What I meant was the claims weren't proven, and that current sources e.g. the 50% sales figure, seemed contradictory to what was being claimed in the FAQ. I'm not attempting to make claims of my own, so I don't see how WP:BURDEN applies to what I'm saying. Again, for clarity I am stating that the FAQ contains unverified claims which are inappropriate and harmful to the debate on both sides, and we need to look at how to address it. That is all. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

All right, that's better. This is a case where wording really does need to be chosen carefully – there's a BIG difference between saying "The FAQ is unproven" and "The FAQ is factually disproven". "The FAQ is unproven" at least allows the people who wrote the FAQ to reassess it and determine if and how to improve it. The other statement actively opposes the content in the FAQ in a way that must be backed up with facts, or else it gets us into a morass of a dispute like the one we're in right now. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's my list, maybe we can get back to discussing the matter at hand instead of who claimed what and who has the burden of proof? 1. What was the original title of this article, and why is that important?

This point is irrelevant. Both titles were used "by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub", and so this point should be removed. Evidence: [3] [4]

6. Was the title stable at Mega Drive?

Yes it was, it was stable for 5 years.

7. So why is the article at "Sega Genesis" now?

This answer deals with what happened, not with why it is as it is now, so I think debating the points in the context of the FAQ would not be useful. I would dispute the 4th point though, as "Mega Drive" was the first use in English and I don't remember anyone ever contradicting that.

8. But shouldn't the article be at Mega Drive or Sega Mega Drive since that is the true and original name?

The answer starts with a pointless "No." which should be removed, it is bad form and is only there to shut down discussion. Additionally, there was no 'consensus finding' as the answer states, there was a straw poll of preferred title only.

9. Have any reasons other than those been given for keeping the article at Sega Genesis?

"it was used mostly in countries where English is not the primary language" is irrelevant.

"The vast majority of English-speaking users of the console are in North America where the name used is "Sega Genesis"" is also irrelevant, because the article is not only for people who owned the console. This point is also unsupported by fact – and the loose evidence we have on the subject indicates that sales under "Genesis" were almost identical to "Mega Drive", not a 'vast majority' at all.

"In addition, the console sold far more units in North America as "Sega Genesis" than in other English speaking countries as "Sega Mega Drive"" is basically the previous inaccurate argument repeated, for some reason.

10. Isn't it true that both "Mega Drive and "Sega Genesis" are perfectly acceptable titles for this article?

Again, this answer suggests that consensus was found for "Sega Genesis" over "Mega Drive" when in fact it was for "Sega Genesis" over "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive".

11. Okay, but the article was at Mega Drive for five years until 2011 when it was needlessly moved to the compound title, and the current title is often contested here... shouldn't it be moved back to Mega Drive for these reasons?

Another "No." designed to shut people down.

"The consensus in 2011 was that the title at that time (Mega Drive) was problematic and the move was favored" implies that the title had some kind of problem with it, when in fact it didn't. The article was fine and the title met criteria perfectly, the problem was on the talk page only. Correct me if I'm wrong but content should be chosen based on what's best for the article, not what's best to quell debates behind the scenes.

15. But isn't favoring a product name because it sold more units under that name than another a biased guideline unfairly favoring the large North American market?

"The primary reason this article is at Sega Genesis is because that was its original title (see #1)." This is incorrect, the original title reason is the last resort tiebreaker, not a primary reason. Additionally the refers to the first non-stub, not the 'original title'.

"Counting total units sold illustrates that the counting countries argument is illogical." No it doesn't. Not everybody bought the system, sales numbers are completely irrelevant to this discussion because Wikipedia is not only for people who bought the product. The important part is exposure, so reliable source references are what count primarily, which are indeterminate in this case. The next best way to gauge exposure is the number of people in countries where it was released under the names.

<Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 19:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Mega Drive wasn't stable either, because this came up repeatedly, and often. No involved editor will refute that. I also do not see a stub tag in the final revision of Sega Genesis from 2003. Mega Drive was first used in Japan, but Sega Genesis is what was released as first in any English speaking territory. That's why the point is up there in the FAQ. That's part of why in the compound title, Sega Genesis came first. The compound title was attempted because the article title was constantly being disputed. A huge discussion ensued after the compound title, with many editors completely uninvolved with the system, and more involved with Wikipedia, and that wound us up at Sega Genesis; because all points were considered and weren't attempted to be thrown out. I'd like to point out that, in fact, that since those editors were just involved to help correct the compound title, it let them take a neutral point of view as to Sega Genesis or Mega Drive. In fact a few of the closing supporters for Sega Genesis were British.--SexyKick 21:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It came up repeatedly but was generally rejected every time, so it was at least somewhat stable. There was never any consensus to move from "Mega Drive" to "Genesis", the consensus was to move from "Mega Drive" to a compound name to appease one party, which was foolhardy as it the compound name didn't meet Wikipedia naming policy. When this was discovered the name should have reverted – and then if necessary another naming discussion, but instead some editors used it as an opportunity to lobby for a change to "Genesis" – with many editors in favour of the change only because it was preferable to the compound name, not because it was preferable to "Mega Drive". --85.211.130.47 (talk) 22:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You act like one or two editors pulled the wool over someone's eyes somehow – during the time when more people were involved than even now. Editors didn't use it as an opportunity to lobby for a change to Sega Genesis, the discussion actually involved getting a list of about five names and discussing all of them. It then came down to Sega Genesis, or Mega Drive left, and then those were discussed. This is all in the archives. I don't like the argument of calling past editors into doubt in this case. You point out that Mega Drive was only "somewhat stable" because name changes were generally rejected every time. The same can be said about the current article. If anything has been proven, it's that this topic is an infinite loop type debate, that neither name is more stable than the other, and that certainly, history repeats itself.--SexyKick 22:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

This article hasn't been around long enough to say the same is true of it. This is the first RfC over the article name since it was changed to "Sega Genesis". The "Mega Drive" article was around for years with multiple RfCs. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the article's actual title was at the time of any of those discussions – the topic was the same: Should it be "Mega Drive" or "Genesis" (or some minor variant of either)? This article has been around since 2003 under multiple names. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

"Mega Drive wasn't stable either, because this came up repeatedly, and often." I would like people to stop implying that stable means something other than 'unchanging'. In fact, by the dictionary definition [5] the fact that it was debated a lot and still didn't change makes it more stable, not less.

"I also do not see a stub tag in the final revision of Sega Genesis from 2003." I don't get your meaning, nothing had a stub tag back then. My point is that when the topic became not a stub, the major contributor (there was only 1 contributor who contributed to it not being a stub, WhisperToMe) used both titles.

"In fact a few of the closing supporters for Sega Genesis were British." I don't see why that's relevant. Firstly they were supporting Sega Genesis over the compound title, people from any region would support that; and secondly this debate is one title vs another not one region vs another. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 03:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to address some of the actual points in your list above, specifically:

• Point 6: The title was only "stable", in that it didn't change for a period of about five years. But as the FAQ accurately states, the title was frequently contested during that time with discussions and debates even more heated than this one. That does not constitute stability by any stretch of the imagination.
• Point 7: I agree with you that the fourth sub-point there doesn't match up with policy. The name "Mega Drive" was well understood outside of Japan before the "Genesis" was introduced in the US (the first native-English-speaking territory for the console). Further, I've argued in other areas of this dispute that the origin of the name is frankly irrelevant to the discussion as a whole, and I don't recall the "naturalness" of the name being a significant factor in prior discussions.
• Point 8: It's a yes-or-no question. "No" is the correct response with regard to the consensus that was reached at the time. How would you have us answer that question? "Yes"? And I disagree with your contention that that decision had been reached only by a straw poll – in fact, I remember many editors specifically pointing out that straw polls are invalid for consensus discussions.
• Point 9: I agree with you that neither of the reasons here strike me as particularly relevant to the Genesis's notability. If I'd written the FAQ, I would instead have focused on the Genesis's role in the US console war, the Congressional hearings on video game violence that largely centered on the Genesis and its software, and the fact that the US market far outweighed other markets in terms of press coverage.
• Point 10: I don't follow your line of reasoning here. In order to move away from the compound name, we naturally had to choose one single name or the other. The reasons for choosing "Sega Genesis" at the time were given in that point and cited back to the original discussion (which was more than a straw poll). I agree that the consensus may not have been as clear as the FAQ suggests, but I think what you're saying here doesn't follow from what's in the FAQ.
• Point 11: You said: "[the statement in the FAQ] implies that the title had some kind of problem with it, when in fact it didn't." That is your opinion. As always, you are welcome to engage in debate on why the Mega Drive title is better, but the very fact that these debates have come up consistently since the article's inception in 2003 means there is some sort of problem with it. Whether it's a problem of fact or people's opinions and interpretations is irrelevant.
• Point 15: I have no specific response here – you have some good points, and that particular topic warrants more in-depth discussion. It has also been the basis for a large portion of this debate both now and in the past, so I'm not arguing for the validity of the points made in that part of the FAQ.

Hope this helps. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it'd be nice if you could add a point to the FAQ on "the Genesis's role in the US console war, the Congressional hearings on video game violence that largely centered on the Genesis and its software, and the fact that the US market far outweighed other markets in terms of press coverage." I think that could / would help.--SexyKick 04:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The only reason I'm not doing that is that I don't know (or don't remember) how much of a role that element played in the consensus decision that led to that FAQ, so I don't want to go putting words in the original authors' mouths. However, I would like it to be considered for any updates to the FAQ when the current discussion draws to a close. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• 6: As I said in response to SexyKick, stable means unchanging. That it was debated and didn't change only increases its stability, not decreases.
• 8: Simply remove the "no," it achieves nothing that isn't achieved with the rest of the answer. As to the straw poll, I wasn't involved back then so sorry if I missed something, but I don't see anywhere else where Genesis was chosen as the new name.
• 10: I honestly don't know how else to word it. My point is, as far as I know, consensus has never been found for Genesis over Mega Drive, either in 2011 or any other time. The FAQ suggests differently.
• 11: I mean in terms of policy. I don't think anyone has ever argued that Mega Drive doesn't meet the criteria to be the article title.

<Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 04:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

(Are you 85.211?) On Point 10: If consensus hadn't been found on the previous title, then why is there an entire archived discussion on it that led to this FAQ in the first place? Are we to assume in bad faith that a small number of Pro-Genesis editors just went and did all this without consulting anyone else and flying in the face of a strong majority leaning the other direction, and then nobody saw fit to undo it? Let's apply Occam's Razor to this.

And on Point 11: In both of the last two discussions on this topic that I've been involved in, Wikipedia naming policy has been at the heart of the discussions, and the suitability of "Mega Drive" has been repeatedly called into question. Not because it, by itself, violates some part of the naming policy (as in, it's not an inaccurate name, it's not offensive, it's not a foreign-language name with an English equivalent, etc.), but because people didn't think it was the correct name. Therefore, in their view, there's something wrong with it with respect to the broader policy about subjects with multiple viable names. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not Karlww, and if it wasn't already clear from what I've said before on the topic, let me make it clear that I do not have any account here at Wikipedia, never have, and have no intention of making one. This is a perfectly acceptable decision to make, does not reflect in any way negatively on myself or my contributions, and should not be used as ammunition against my input or motives as many editors have been doing. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Point 10: I don't see what you're getting at here. If consensus has been found for Genesis over Mega Drive, please indicate where, because no such thing is sourced in the FAQ.

Point 11: If a title meets policy, how can there be anything wrong with it? I'll note that the only time Mega Drive has been decided against as the title was when it was changed to the compound title, which was done to try and end debate on the talk page, not because there was something wrong with the title. To me 'problematic' means there is something wrong with the title in the context of the WP article; the idea that something in the article causing discussion on the talk page is a problem, and the article should be changed just to end debate, is a gross disregard of the purpose of WP. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 03:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Questions 14 and 15 should just be removed – "Counting total units sold illustrates that the counting countries argument is illogical." The argument it propagates, is that because the Genesis had more sales than the Mega Drive, that the Genesis is the correct name. This boils down the argument to buying power – as I have never bought a Mega Drive, I do not have a say. That's shameful. - hahnchen 12:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN and the FAQ

There seems to be some confusion in the discussion above as to who the burden lies with to provide evidence that proves/disproves claims made. WP:BURDEN makes it quite clear:

"Sometimes editors will disagree on whether material is verifiable. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material."

I'd argue that as I'm not trying to make any claims of my own or claim the inverse of the statements made in the FAQ, the burden of proof does not, and can not lie with me. To provide evidence that a statement is false before it can be challenged is not how Wikipedia works, the onus is on those making the claim to provide evidence for it.

With that in mind can we provide evidence to verify statements:

"WP:Commonname indicates "Sega Genesis" because it arguably had the most usage in English language reliable sources;" – (Use of "arguably" in that sentence seems like a weasel word to avoid having to backup the claim to me.)

and:

"The vast majority of English-speaking users of the console are in North America where the name used is "Sega Genesis","

Is there evidence of these two points? If not they should not be in the FAQ, regardless of consensus. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Your misunderstanding of this policy lies in this statement: "The burden ... lies with the editor who adds or restores material". That is meant to apply to new concepts as well as new prose. And when applied to this consensus discussion, the "added material" is the claim that parts of the FAQ are incorrect and should not be used to justify prior consensus. The fact that a consensus exists, no matter how flawed it might be, places the burden on YOU to convince everyone else to change it. You cannot retroactively expect the people who established that consensus to prove it – it's been there for several years and you are now the one to whom WP:BURDEN applies. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll add that nobody is denying your right to challenge a claim. Challenging consensus is what these kinds of discussions are all about. It's a vital part of the process here. But challenging a claim does not automatically entitle you to win the discussion – you enter into a debate with others, and you have to convince them that the consensus should be changed. The best way to do that, when discussing matters of fact, is to bring facts to the table and not just make vague or blanket statements about the presence of facts. When discussing matters of policy, point to the policies in question and cite them (as you did here). In all other cases, it's up to you to provide convincing arguments. I'd say based on the fact that for all the walls of text we have in this discussion, the fact that the consensus hasn't really budged yet would seem to indicate you haven't been very convincing. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I fundamentally disagree that challenging an existing claim – regardless of how longstanding it is – qualifies as the adding of material. I don't intend to have anything new added to the FAQ, only clarification or removal of non-verified claims in it. This is standard practice, and statements that can't be verified should be removed – regardless of consenses or how long they've been here – that's how WP:V works. By discussing the issue here I'm giving other editors ample opportunity to find sources to verify the statements, but given the known sources for sales figures, etc. are already in the article and fail to backup these claims, I think it's highly doubtful such verification exists. Which therefore makes it even more impossible to find sources that disprove the statements, which is why WP:V puts onus on those making the claims to prove them, not on those disputing the claims to disprove them. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, at this point I can honestly say I have more important things to do (like my actual, real-life job) than to continue to argue about this. I hope you guys get this sorted out soon, and hopefully in a way that will make the consensus clearer when this topic will inevitably come up again two or three years from now. Have fun. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

85.211, you are trying to apply article-space rules to talk-space.

I think you will not find much agreement with your theory that you can ask for any material in TALK space to be removed and place the burden of proof on the other party. Such a policy would not benefit the encyclopedia in any way.

A FAQ represents a record of a consensus, one person may challenge that consensus, but the burden lies with the challenger.APL (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

85.211, a lot of your arguments this whole time are very much like "we have to throw this piece of information out first, now how does it look? Ah...see!" That's not how this works, IMO.--SexyKick 18:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why. False statements or statements without any evidence to back them up do need to be disregarded in order to compare the two names fairly. I can't make it any clearer that using arguments such as "there are more English-speaking users that know the console as Genesis than Mega Drive" or "The term "Sega Genesis" is more widely used than the term "Mega Drive" when there's absolutely zero evidence supporting those statements simply isn't acceptable. If you think otherwise, then there's not really any more point us two discussing it. Decisions should be made on facts, not on statements people have just made up, even if there was consensus over those statements at one time, they still need to have a basis in fact. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Except that consensus which you are disputing, was established with facts and sources. There's not "zero evidence", there's "zero evidence, once you remove this and that, which I don't agree with".--SexyKick 19:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Was it? Where is it then? If that's the case all you have to do is demonstrate these statements are accurate with these sources. If you can't, or use some excuse like "it's up the party disputing the claims to provide evidence to the contrary" (which is most likely not even possible, given the nature of these statements) then it brings into doubt your claim that these sources exist or that there was ever a broad consensus over these statements at all.

The reasoning I've read given for these statements seems to fall under WP:SYNTH rather than them being actually verifiable. For example, the sources we do have (which are not especially reliable and contested by some) indicate that approximately half of units sold were under the Genesis name, in North America. Proponents of the Genesis title seem to be extrapolating that to make their claim that "the majority of English-speaking users know the console as the Sega Genesis". That is WP:SYNTH and original research, and therefore isn't an acceptable argument to use, because the country the units were sold in does not have any bearing on whether or not the users are English speakers (i.e. plenty people in Asia, Europe, Brazil, etc. speak English as a second language). The English wikipedia caters to all English speakers internationally, not just users from nations where English is the native language. It's an important distinction that seems to have been lost on a lot of people in the debate. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed FAQ rewrite

I've written up a draft of a proposed rewrite for the FAQ over at User:KieferSkunk/GenesisFAQ. This is a major edit of the existing FAQ with the following goals in mind:

• Centralizing the article's naming history into a single timeline,
• Neutralizing the language surrounding the individual moves,
• Removing language that the community in general seems to agree is making the FAQ difficult to understand,
• Explaining in an appropriate level of detail what decisions were made at which times,
• Centralizing the arguments for each major name,
• Pointing to the various policies that have applied to many of the arguments given on both sides,
• Removing confusing sub-topics such as the distinction between "Mega Drive" and "Sega Mega Drive",
• Reducing redundancy (several of the points in the original FAQ are repeats of earlier points),
• Clarifying that arguments given on both sides of the article are arguments and not necessarily statements of fact, and
• Focusing the FAQ solely on its purpose: To explain the history of this issue and what the current state of consensus is.

Please take a look at it. If at all possible, I'd like to avoid this becoming yet another fork in this disaster of a debate. I'm certainly open to feedback – I'm sure it's not perfect, but as one of the editors who's participated in many of these discussions, I did my best to make the FAQ as WP:NPOV and non-hostile as possible. I hope it'll help. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Took a look at what's there. I like what I see so far. Reasonable, neutral, tries to cover both sides. Would you like to focus any discussion on the talk page in your userspace or here, Kiefer? --McDoobAU93 01:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Probably would be best to have discussion on the FAQ itself happen there – how about User talk:KieferSkunk/GenesisFAQ ? That way it should probably be easier to scope and hopefully avoid getting too much into the name-change topic itself. The main thing I want to make sure of is that this thing is accurate and fair at the same time. 85.211 had some good points that some points of the current FAQ are either misleading or irrelevant, so I'm trying to see if I can address those without fundamentally changing the info in the FAQ as a whole. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. I would then support adding move protection in order to ensure it's not contested and a move war comes into place. Per the policy, move protection can be used for titles under a naming dispute. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 01:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

That's the one I was referring to, instead of your personal user talk page. And that's what I was seeing in your proposed FAQ, too. Trying to clear things up, reinforcing that this is consensus and not necessarily irrefutable fact. I think it's a great start, both for a revision and for shifting out of this RfC. --McDoobAU93 02:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I like what I see. I do think, however, that any instance of "United States" should be replaced with "North America".--SexyKick 02:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I saw that too, SK. Since it was also sold in Canada as Genesis (as an editor pointed out), North America makes it less US-centric. --McDoobAU93 02:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha. I changed the references to North America everywhere except for the ad war (specific to the US) and the copyright issue (which was a US issue and didn't extend to Canada). — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

(After a bit more thought, I updated the "ad war" to North America as well, since advertising did spill over into Canada as well, and I clarified "U.S. Congressional" hearings.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I forgot to mention the Sega v. Accolade issue too.--SexyKick 02:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. What's the significance of that with respect to the title discussions? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

It was a notable case in America involving the Genesis that set precedents involving reverse engineering and fair use, but otherwise I'm not sure it really involves the naming of this article. It's just one more thing involving "Genesis". <shameless plug>I am waiting on a GA review for it, though.</shameless plug> Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you don't think there's significance, then there might not be. It was a lawsuit in the United States connected to the TMSS and Genesis games produced by Accolade. "Accolade learned of this development at the Winter Consumer Electronics Show in January 1991, at which Sega showed the new Genesis III (typo?) and demonstrated it screening and rejecting an Ishido game cartridge.[4] With more games planned for the following year, Accolade rushed to identify the TMSS file and did so successfully. They later added this file to the games HardBall!, Star Control, Mike Ditka Power Football, and Turrican.[4]" So then there was a lawsuit about unfair competition. "video game publisher Accolade, which had disassembled the Genesis in order to publish games without being licensed by Sega"

It was seen as significant because of the controversial decision, and it was seen as impactful because "Sega v. Accolade has been an influential case in matters involving reverse engineering of software and copyright infringement, and has been cited in numerous cases since 1993.[4]" (I was kind of correlating it to the notability, comparable to the congressional hearings about the violence.)--SexyKick 03:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that's pretty significant, but to my eye it falls in the range of "North American/Genesis press coverage". Also, in a way, it has less to do with the Genesis in particular and more to do with Sega as a company – it could have happened to any of their products with probably the same general outcome. It just happened to be a Genesis-centric event.

More to the point, though, I don't recall that issue in particular playing any major role in the past discussions. And the FAQ doesn't need to dive too deeply into individual events, methinks – hopefully the links to the past discussions themselves will help if anyone's interested in those details. (I could even generalize the whole "specific notability" part if that would help.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be generalized further. Your point is correct too, it was never brought up really. I brought it up in yesterdays discussion after you indicated we could potentially use notability to guide the discussion, but until then I had never seen it mentioned.--SexyKick 07:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I support it as well. Sergecross73 msg me 02:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Even though I lean a bit towards Sega Genesis, I think that it is wrong to embed the arguments of one side of the dispute as a FAQ. Also this one is too immense. I'd cut the FAQ down t 1/4 of it's size and just include some neutral history. North8000 (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. The primary arguments from both sides are in my proposed rewrite. And if we cut it down much further, we lose much of the context that the FAQ was written to provide in the first place – we might as well not have one at that point, and just let everyone rehash history again next time someone takes issue with the article's title. I firmly believe a FAQ like this has to be reasonably complete in order to serve any useful purpose. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. It should be complete. As this is more complete than the other FAQ, and the author of it has now stepped away from discussion; Born2cycle, can we replace the current FAQ with this one and move towards closing the RFC?--SexyKick 20:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

It's still premature for closing the RfC, the general rule of thumb is an RfC has to run it's course for a month to give opportunity for interested parties to participate. The !vote on consensus being possible isn't a vote (that shouldn't really need pointing out) so it has no bearing on this matter. You can't make a !vote then declare afterward, when you get the result you want that it actually was a vote. As well as the fact that Wikipedia is not a democracy. --85.211.204.35 (talk) 20:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Just pointing out that if you intend to keep arguing this thing for a whole month, you're going to have a lot more people pissed off at you than just me. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• The final sentence of point 2 is incorrect. I'm not sure why the policy needs re-interpreting, it's written in pretty clear English. It says "title used by the first major contributor" not "the original title". Perhaps the point should note that both titles fit the policy.
• Point 3 is just plain incorrect. The title didn't change for 5 years, stable means "unchanging", the title was stable.
• This sentence should be removed from point 6: "Consequently, User:SteveBaker wrote a very thorough analysis of the relevant portion of the consensus policy supporting the title "Sega Genesis"" – given how incorrect said analysis is.
• Otherwise this rewrite is very good and certainly a vast improvement on the current one. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 21:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. Point 2 was mostly a direct holdover from the current FAQ – I wasn't sure if it needed the reinterpretation either. But I would also argue that the difference between "title used by the first major contributor" and "the original title" is one of semantics when applied to this issue. It's not fair to point out "Sega Mega Drive" was also used by the first major contributor because that happened when the article was split into two roughly equivalent articles – the title of the originating article wasn't changed to anything "Mega Drive" before that point.

On Point 3: You seem to be one of only two or three editors out of the whole range of people here arguing that the title was actually stable at "Mega Drive" for five years. I chose the wording on that point very carefully: "...it is widely considered to not have been a stable title." This reflects community opinion, not a strict reading of the dictionary.

I added the reference to SteveBaker's analysis last night before the current shitstorm over it started. Since it's now in question, I'll remove it again, and only put it back if the community agrees to it. I *thought* we might have been getting some closure on it, but apparently I was too optimistic. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Re point 2 semantics: I guess the crucial question is why the policy is worded the way it is instead of more simply – perhaps a question for that talk page? To my mind it's to give weight to an early serious contributor instead of "just any guy" who happened to create the article. In this case that serious editor apparently thought both titles should be used.

Re point 3: an absence of people disputing does not imply a presence of people supporting it. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 21:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

(sigh) Fine, since we apparently MUST WikiLawyer every single tiny point, I reworded the "stability" section for you. Happy? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Food for thought – Our time better spent?

If we spent a fraction of the amount of time we spend debating the name of article on actually improving the article (accuracy, neutrality, completeness, style, etc.) it would be a Featured Article by now. The English Wikipedia has 4,251,905 articles as of this writing, and only 3,918 are featured articles. Wouldn't it an incredible accomplishment to gain Featured Article status? Maybe we can even get the article featured on Wikipedia's main page. Wouldn't that be a better use of our time and energy than arguing over the article's name? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree. If I were not involved, I'd have closed the discussion for those very reasons. Sergecross73 msg me 01:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Great point, Quest ... the talk page has more than quadrupled in size since this started. That's 180,000 characters that could have gone into who knows what. And yes, I totally admit a lot of those characters are mine. --McDoobAU93 01:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

From my own recollection, this instance of the debate is nothing compared to some of the previous ones. I recall the one about "fixing" the compound name spanning multiple megabytes of text, across at least three different discussion pages.

But yes, I agree that not only could we have spent this time and effort on more productive things, this kind of debate is one of the reasons a lot of people don't take Wikipedia more seriously. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, true, and this sort of nonsense could be scaring off potential new people from ever working on the article too. I'm pretty certain I came across the page once way back when I first started, took a look at all the arguing over little things, and decided I'd rather work on something less contentious... Sergecross73 msg me 03:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thoughts

(Following up on the spirit of A Quest For Knowledge's post above)

I left this article in September 2011, I removed all of my Watchlist entries, walked away, and haven't been back since. I notice that I'm still 4th in the list of all-time contributors to the article, but I've slipped down the list of talk page contributors. Strange that. I left because of a number of reasons, the "wrong name" arguments after five years of stability and the fact that people will argue vociferously on the talk page and yet do nothing to improve the actual article, are just two of the reasons.

The defensive FAQ at the top doesn't tally with my recollection of events. I voted for a move to the compromise name, because the general feeling at the time, was that the constant battle over the name would never be resolved. The compromise name was voted through, and then declared void due to policy, the article should have been moved back to its original name, instead a quick decision was made to move it to Genesis. In my opinion this was a land-grab that had no sense of community spirit about it and came across as a quick grab for a desired result.

What has happened since? Nothing but a constant battle between two sides who have pledged their allegiances to their flags and must defend the victory their forefathers won, or avenge their loss. The article; that very, very few of you actually edit, must be at the correct title. Yet none of you are bothered about the article are you? Your version of the name is correct and that's how it must be.

Please. Drop all of your arguments and guideline shopping and open your eyes. Use common sense and come up with a sensible name that everyone can agree on.

My opinion is that the only long lasting solution is the Judgement of Solomon, use neither name, go to higher powers in Wikipedia and explain that the only solution is some form of compromise name that goes against Common Name, because neither name will ever be fully accepted by the other side, and the constant bickering will continue ad-infinitum.

One final note; I said that the actual editing of the article would be dumped on SexyKick and was proved right. SexyKick has got 320 edits to his name on this article. The rest of you are nowhere near him. Time for you to re-adjust your priorities. - X201 (talk) 09:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the move from MD&G was exactly a "Landgrab" as you describe it. The compromise name attracted a bunch of new editors (Including myself, and I believe, SteveBaker) who felt it set a bad precedent and could have repercussions beyond this article. For better or worse, that influx is what changed the balance, so when the age-old debate was restarted, the straw-poles fell out differently.

I still think that a compromise name is far worse than the two alternatives. There are many naming disputes on Wikipedia, if "Petrol and Gasoline" was an good article title, that article would already be there. APL (talk) 10:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Petrol and Gasoline refer to the exact same thing however with no variation between the two other than the name. It's not like nations that use the term petrol tend to have a slightly different chemical makeup that would make the distinction between the two important. This isn't the case here, "Genesis" is the less appropriate name to use in the majority of statements than "Mega Drive" is, e.g. "The Genesis was first released in Japan on..." makes less sense than "The Mega Drive was first released in Japan on...". The only time using the "Genesis" term is more appropriate is when relating to issues specific to North America, that's why using the "Genesis" title has negative implications for the readability of the article as it specifically refers to one particular variant of the Mega Drive. Getting back to the point it also means that "Mega Drive and Genesis" isn't the same as "Petrol and Gasoline" because the Mega Drive and Genesis are slightly different things, rather than just alternative names for the same thing. You simply cannot use "Genesis" as an alternate term for "Mega Drive" in situations where it doesn't apply (like referring to the console outside of the North American region) and have it still make sense or have the same level of accuracy in the way you can alternate between "petrol" and "gasoline". --85.211.204.35 (talk) 12:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think people are actually understanding just how right this IP is, because they've never really cared about the discussion to begin with. The arguments he's presenting are the only ones that actually work; it's called logic. There has been very little logic in this entire discussion, and it's sad that this guy's being glossed over because some people felt that he's supposedly gamed the system and others people are sick of doing absolutely nothing. Those same people complaining about the lack of logic are replicating that very behavior; they are the real problem here. Despatche (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You're probably right – but it doesn't matter because you're not convincing your opponents of that. You don't have consensus...and more importantly, you're never going to get it. In our last debate on the matter of compromise titles, there wasn't great consensus on which name to pick – but there was overwhelming consensus that compromise titles don't pass muster with Wikipedia guidelines...so those kinds of compromise solutions ("A and B" or "A/B" or alternating between A and B at one month intervals) simply aren't "in the solution space". SteveBaker (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem is that no one is trying to find "C". On reading that people will instantly think of titles like "Fourth generation console" or similar, I'm not suggesting titles like that, but I think there are other ways to solve this problem. Permanently. - X201 (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

(sigh) I really thought we might have been moving toward closure last night. Sad to see the debate just heated right up again... seriously, what will it take to put this stupid debate to bed once and for all? Do we have to get Jimbo involved? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

That was part of my reason for walking away after the last time. A consensus on a single name will never be stable. I have two suggestions; these are off the top of my head and I haven't checked how they fit against guidelines and policy, so don't bite my head off over it, I'm just trying to find a way to the promised land.

• Idea 1: We expand the article with region specific info so that we can fork and have an article at both titles. A North America specific one for Genesis and The Mega Drive article for all other regions. Content that is identical for each console we either share between the articles or we fork it to a third article that can legitimately have both machines in the title. e.g. "Hardware specification of Sega Mega drive and Genesis consoles". (Or something better, but you get the idea).

• Idea 2: See if we can get dispensation for a disambiguation like "Mega Drive (Sega Genesis)", I know it probably won't be allowed but its worth a try.

• Idea 3: (Looks like this one may be starting below.) Form a group of editors who are fed up with the constant battle and build a consensus that the article must not have either name as its title. I'm basing this on WP:IAR and I know it would push it to its limits and be a first for Wikipedia. But if it gets the job done.

As I said, these are off the top of my head, they may work, they may not, but if it helps prompt a way through or gives someone an idea then it will be worth a try. I think the stable way forward will be based on an all or none solution. - X201 (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

While I appreciate the effort here, I doubt any of these are going to get traction. The editors involved are too entrenched in the current names to really even consider alternatives, as was demonstrated the last couple of times any hybridization of the name occurred. When the compound name "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive" was used, everyone ended up hating it because it ran afoul of naming policies and didn't really address their concerns. Forking the article is just going to get everyone riled up about how we have two articles on the same subject, no matter how much refactoring we do. And nobody's going to be happy if we take a title that doesn't actually match either accepted name.

As far as I can tell, this is a hopeless lost cause, and nothing short of an executive decision from someone high up the chain like Jimbo is going to shut this thing down. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Consensus !vote

I'd like to conduct a straw poll here. Do we have a consensus that this issue will never be resolved by consensus debate on the facts of the matter? Please add a "Support" !vote to one or other option – or (if you must) add a new option. Please add discussions into the sections provided at the bottom to avoid cluttering the !votes.

OPTION #1: I believe that we will eventually come to a consensus as to which title this article should have based on reasoned debate about the facts.

• Support – 85.211.204.35 (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

OPTION #2: I do not believe we will ever form a consensus as to which title this article should have based on reasoned debate about the facts.

• Support – (NOMINATOR) SteveBaker (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support – If "eventually" is broadly construed, then I guess it's possible. Realistically, however, it's time to let this poor horse rest in peace. --McDoobAU93 15:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support – I, for one, will never agree that the title should be Sega Genesis and not Mega Drive, and I believe there are many others like me on both sides, thus we will never agree on a title. Andre666 (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support – This debate has been raging on for the better part of a decade, and the trenches are as deep as ever. You know the phrase "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it"? How many times do we have to repeat this sad bit of history before we can finally move on to more important things? Just pick a damn title and live with it – IT REALLY ISN'T THAT IMPORTANT! — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support – This isn't preemptive, this is backed with the evidence of multiple three month debates that absolutely lead no where. If you believe there is a confusing sentence in the article, please bring it up.--SexyKick 20:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support – I've thought about it more carefully, true consensus will never be reached. Too many people cling to fallacies for that to be possible. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 20:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support Look up 'definition of insanity' --SubSeven (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support, With the caveat that WP's USA bias means that a !vote could easily go two-thirds "Genesis", some closers might incorrectly call that a "Consensus". But I don't think a true consensus on merit is possible. APL (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd like to clarify that this does not imply that I support a hybrid title. What we really need is to choose one of the two best titles, through Random.org if necessary, and then find a way to shut down all debate on the subject for some long period of time. Debates on WP fueled by national rivalry need a multi-year cool-down timer. APL (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support – Let's stop wasting time and effort on this. Sergecross73 msg me 02:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support Stop dragging this out, everything that could've been said has been said, considered, and you aren't going to change anyone's mind. Dream Focus 16:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of Option #1

• Comment – There was consensus for Mega Drive over Genesis for 5 years, up to and including the month when it was moved to the batshit insane compound title. I have faith that we can return to that state. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 17:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

  That's absolutely not true. I've looked back over the talk page discussions over that period and there were repeated arguments about the name over most of those 5 years – just as there has been repeated arguments over the present name for the last 2 1/2 years. Over neither period of time did you have consensus...just a "status quo" that was resistant to change. There is no "return to that state" – the article has almost never had a proper consensus for one title or another. SteveBaker (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

  I agree with SteveBaker. The title didn't change for five years, but as I explained in my proposed FAQ rewrite, that was more a function of momentum and entropy than an actual consensus. In all of the disputes that happened during that time, we still had the same 50/50 split on the issue, which by definition is not consensus. The only reason it stayed at the Mega Drive title at the time was that there wasn't a strong enough consensus to change it, until a group of editors (including myself) finally agreed on the compromise title. The fact that it was continually challenged without a strong consensus to leave it at Mega Drive means it was not a stable title. (Think of it this way: You have a rickety table that shifts and creaks every time you walk by it. Just because that table doesn't collapse every day doesn't mean the table could be considered "stable".) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

  All I can say is that's not what the word stable means. The title did not change, ergo it was stable. You can't argue with that, it's basic grammar. If you want to apply this to your metaphor, of course the table wasn't stable, it shifted and creaked every time you walked past it – it changed when you walked past it! The argument people are using against Mega Drive is that the mere act of walking past it makes it unstable whether it moved or not! <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 19:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

  The table didn't collapse into a pile of dust, therefore it's stable? Even when everything else falls off of it? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

  Apparently you aren't even reading what I'm writing. No, as I said, the table is not stable if it keeps moving when you walk past it. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 20:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

  I read what you said, and I'm pointing out that you missed my point. The table didn't "change" – it didn't turn into a different table, it didn't take on a new name or identity, and it didn't fundamentally transform into some other piece of furniture. It is still the same table. The ground it sits on is shaky, as are the "consensus decisions" that have been made over this article's lifespan. So the table was able to stand for five years on shaky ground. Good for it. That doesn't mean it's STABLE. It eventually did collapse and have to be rebuilt, right? And it's still held together with zip ties. Things are still falling off of it. I'm not sure how much more I can beat this metaphor into the ground, really. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

  This is analogy has been stretched to the point of being ridiculous, and was irrelevant to start with. In the context of Wikipedia, "stable" means "non-changing". There are articles/titles that are constantly being challenged by groups of editors but remain the same and thus qualify as stable, e.g. Gasoline, Maize, etc. The "Mega Drive" title qualified as stable according to the way the term "stable" is used on Wikipedia. --85.211.204.35 (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

  Fine, you win. The article was stable. Happy now? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

  Karl, the title may have been "stable" for five years or so as Mega Drive, but discussion on the talk page indicates there was no consensus support for that title, contrary to what you claimed above... "There was consensus for Mega Drive over Genesis for 5 years..."

  I'm not convinced we don't have consensus for the current title. Consensus does not require unanimous support. But whether we have consensus support for the current title is immaterial, because the only way to change it is to have consensus support for changing it, and that clearly we don't have. --B2C 22:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

  Hm, that's a good point. We could have consensus that the title is immaterial and that the article should be focused on instead.--SexyKick 02:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

  Gee, that sounds an awful lot like what I've been saying this whole time. :P (Sorry, SexyKick, I'm not picking on you in particular. ;)) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of Option #2

• Comment – I feel it's worth noting pre-emptively trying to decide that consensus can't be reached (and the wording of this section is specifically worded in that direction as opposed to being neutral) is not how consensus is worked towards. In general this debate over whether consensus is or is not possible is a diversionary tactic from the main issue of discussing which name is more suitable, and is only prolonging and harming the debate in my opinion. There are people on both sides of the debate that are capable of discussing the article title on its own merits, rather than engaging in side issues about consensus and tiebreaker policies, and that those that feel the article title isn't important enough to warrant consideration would be acting more productive by letting those that do wish to discuss the issue do so without these diversions. --85.211.204.35 (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • As I just said in my !vote above, "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it". This entire debate over the last week or so is absolutely nothing new. Every single point that was brought up here – yours and everyone else's – has already been beaten to death in half a dozen earlier debates on the same exact topic. The circumstances might have been slightly different in each case, but the outcome and the acrimony is identical. You know what the definition of insanity is, right? "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome." As someone who's been around this block a few times, I'm pretty sure, barring some major shift in policy, an executive order from Jimbo Wales, or an as-of-yet undiscovered source that finally tips the scales, you're going to continue to have a 50/50 split on this issue and no clear consensus will ever be found. Pessimistic? Try realistic. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
    • As I said in my last sentence, those who don't feel the article title is worth debating are free not to do so, there is no reason why people should feel compelled to enter the discussion only to try and pre-emptively shut it down by claiming consensus is impossible. There are people on both sides willing to discuss the issue and potentially come to a consensus, it's the people that are refusing to listen to the debate and instead claiming it's pointless that are one of the biggest factors holding us back from reaching consensus or exploring alternative solutions. --85.211.204.35 (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
      • And as I have said to you many times now, the same old tired arguments were already debated to death before, with the same counter-arguments and the same outcome, with many of the same people. There's a reason why many of us are saying it's pointless to keep debating it – BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING NEW HERE. BRING SOMETHING NEW TO THE TABLE AND MAYBE WE CAN MAKE SOME PROGRESS. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Again, that isn't relevant to the current debate. There's no reason for you to be here if you think this discussion is pointless, and you don't have any authority to attempt to close down the discussion while it's ongoing. All you're doing is sidetracking the issue, acting generally disruptive and prolonging the debate. --85.211.204.35 (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
          • Okay, you know what? Fine. You go ahead and keep on arguing, then. I have no more capacity for this bullshit. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
            • That's all you had to do when you decided you had enough, rather than ranting all over the talk page, holding back discussion and generally violating WP:CIV, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF. Your behavior on the talk page is unbecoming of an administrator and I am filing an RfC on your conduct. --85.211.204.35 (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
              • Are you kidding me? He was the one who stood up for you, the one who told everyone to take a step back and look at your views from the outside. Biting the hand that feeds you? You're a real piece of work. He was on your side until he saw how you're handling the situation. It is a grave loss to this article to not have his contributions. Yes, he supported Mega Drive, but he was one of the only ones to read and consider all arguments, and has contributed greatly to the article too – as one of the main reasons it made it to GA status, and he is one of the clearest writers and thinkers here. Thanks for costing the article his support – yet again.--SexyKick 20:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
                • That's not how I edit. I don't pick sides or favourites or play games. I'm only interested in improving the quality of Wikipedia through reasoned and civil means, if KieferSkunk is violating that with harmful behaviour and violating policy then I'm indifferent to whether or not he agrees with me on the article name or "stood up for [me]" previously. --85.211.204.35 (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
                  • I agree, that's not how you edit. You stand in the way of the article moving forward with your wiki-lawyering; Skunk has been one of the the only ones to have any progress of moving the article forward this time, and it seemingly increased your hostility towards him.--SexyKick 20:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
                    • No, 85.211 hasn't been openly hostile toward me at all. If he had become hostile, there would have been grounds to request an uninvolved admin to take some sort of action. But he's right – he's not breaking any rules. He's doing a very good job of being a WikiLawyer, picking at policies, repeating the same arguments over and over, and letting that by itself get under other people's skin. There's nothing uncivil about that. Just damn frustrating. And of course, whenever anyone lets that frustration show, it's automatically OUR fault that WE'RE the ones who can't control ourselves. I do NOT apologize for my bitterness over that. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
                      • I find it hostile when he says he's going to make an RFC against you, while you have managed to maintain clear thought, and you have been honest about your frustration – stating it in a fair manner.--SexyKick 21:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
                        • Eh, he's just doing his WikiLawyer thing again. Let him, and let whoever it is that handles that decide. I have nothing to hide, and honestly I have nothing to lose either. As I said before, there are far more important things for me to do. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
                          • So basically what you're saying here is "fuck AGF"? In that case I have a bone to pick with one of your userboxes <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 21:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
                            • There's only so much good faith one can assume before it becomes ridiculous to do so, Karl. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
                        • It's actually proper etiquette to inform the user that you're about to file an RfC on, that you're doing it. It even says so in the guidelines. Filing an RfC is not an act of hostility. --85.211.204.35 (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
                          • You do realize the rules on that say you're supposed to do that on the targeted user's talk page, right? Not in the middle of an article's talk page? But don't bother – you notified me. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
              • 85.211, you are certainly more than welcome to request a comment on my conduct. I will freely admit that I am pissed off and annoyed to hell that the exact same thing has happened in this instance of the debate as it did in 2011 when I ALSO chose to remove myself from the dispute for my own sanity. Go read my Talk Page and see the dispute I had with User:LedRush at that time, as well as more general spillover from that version of the dispute, if you don't believe how very much identical this version is. Perhaps you'll start to understand why it pisses me off so much. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
              • BTW, before you do file that RfC, save yourself some time and effort and consider whether you have an issue with me as an editor or as an administrator. I will point out that I never took one single administrative action during this entire time (eg. blocking, page protection, moving, deleting or otherwise using any admin tool). — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
              • Yes, more bureacracy! That's just what we need. Bring it on, Mr. IP! --SubSeven (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

So: We seem to be reaching a strong consensus that factual answers will never get us to a consensus-backed decision here. Well, at least we agree on something (well...mostly).

That means that it's time for 85.211.204.35 to stop kidding him/herself that we're ever going to get consensus out of this debate. As of the first dozen or so !votes in my little straw poll, nobody else believes that (which doesn't surprise me in the least).

Hence we really need to focus on the consequences of that fact. We need to face up to the WP:CONSENSUS "no consensus" policy – and put aside all of those very wonderful arguments about the facts and opinions as to which title is "The Best". We're never going to agree on that – so it's definitely time to employ the dreaded "tie-breaker" test.

From this point in the debate onwards, we should all be working with the knowledge that no matter what we personally feel, there simply is no such thing as "The Best Title" for this article...it's a wash.

I'd like to think of this as a liberating thing. Now we can focus on just two very simple questions:

1) Has the present title been "stable for long enough" to be kept as the !consensus solution?

...and if not:

2) What was the title when the article first transitioned from being a stub?

SteveBaker (talk) 02:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I, for one, really have no strong preference either way on which title we end up with. IMO, neither title can be considered stable, both are perfectly acceptable, and regardless of which one we go with, we can address shortcomings in the prose and all around in other related articles with a good, liberal application of common sense. All I really want is to see this thing over and done with, and with some way of enforcing it in the future so that huge debacles like this don't happen again. They're disruptive and destructive, and they only serve to fragment the community for no particular gain. Let's just finish this once and for all, please. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree fully, it's clear that one side of the argument is going to ignore all fact and policies in perpetuity, so on with the show.

1) If you take the letter of the policy, then "then the long-standing article title is kept" indicates not, because Mega Drive stood for longer. If you use the new and improved meaning of stable used by some here, then no it's never been stable.

2) "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" – that is, both titles.

<Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 03:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You certainly would be one to talk about assuming good faith, now wouldn't you? :P — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Steve, I'm not trying to be awkward, but the vote above was a question "Do you think...", people were asked to express their view on the situation. It wasn't a vote that promised a certain course of action after they had voted. If it was going to trigger a certain action, you should have told people what they were voting for. I'm not accusing you of gerrymandering, I know you're just trying to get this definitively resolved like the some of us. But running the poll like that now gives a new lever for "the other side" to pull if this poll leads to a resolution of the name. - X201 (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It didn't trigger anything that the majority here hadn't already pretty much decided to do. The purpose of the straw poll was to demonstrate to the one or two people who still believed that they could get consensus that this door has now firmly closed. I think we all knew this in our hearts – this is just a demonstration of that. If you want to do something super-formal, feel free – but honestly, I think we all know what we have to do now, let's all just get on and do it. This straw poll was just a demonstration of the necessity of doing that for those very few who thought otherwise. SteveBaker (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

FAQ update

I've updated the FAQ from using the version at User:KieferSkunk/GenesisFAQ (which I've archived) which appeared to have consensus support above. I liked how each question was a separately editable section in the old one, but whatever. I also added one edit to clarify that the editors involved in the 2011 expanded discussions were not only from video games project[6]. --B2C 19:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC) struck statement about separately editable sections – not true! --B2C 20:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I'm honored to have been able to improve the FAQ – hopefully it addresses the concerns that were brought up here (in particular clarifying the difference between community opinion and statements of fact). I don't see any evidence that the FAQ ever had formatting to make the questions separately editable, but if that's desired, I'm sure we can figure out a way to make it happen. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

BTW, since the FAQ was moved over here, I went ahead and deleted my sandbox. Don't be worried by the redlinks. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. I was confused with another FAQ. Good job and thanks! --B2C 20:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

This is stupid – truly, completely, fucking batshit, stupid.

You guys have gone around this loop a bunch of times and there is absolutely ZERO chance that you're ever going to get a long-standing consensus.

Really – no chance – zip, nada, nothing. Not going to happen. You're all going to fight and fight over years to come like petulant schoolchildren who can't get their way – within days of some decision being made, the exact same debate gets restarted all over with the precise same arguments and the precise same divisions of people.

It's pointless.

Truly. Nobody outside of your tight little group gives a damn what the article is called – because we have these cool redirect things and we resolve these kinds of issue throughout the encyclopedia – largely without these kinds of stupid arguments. I certainly don't care what it's called. Either way is fine by me and all but about a dozen of the hundred thousand other editors and the billion or so Wikipedia readers. You're not helping the encyclopedia in any way whatever. Really – this is a very stupid way to behave. If anything, you're making us all look stupid. This entire discussion is just a total waste of time, effort, bytes and bandwidth.

No – don't argue with me. From an outsider's position, you all look like those medieval scholars arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

You're just wasting your breath trying to convince the other side because neither side is ever going to give up. So – no consensus. Not ever. Not gonna happen. So give up the consensus-building subtle debates – it doesn't matter a damn whether more consoles were sold in these markets in those years or whether the machine was sold in Japan under such-and-such name before it was sold in Outer Mongolia under some other name or how many ghits there were.

It doesn't matter a damn how clever your arguments are – you'll NEVER convince the other side. You just can't. So we can save everyone a lot of time here:

No arguments over which name is "better" are worth following because they won't change anyone's mind and achieve consensus. It simply can't happen at this point. You are wasting your breath even bothering to explain them...it's not going to change anyones mind. When someone on the other side presents an argument of a factual nature – you can just go "la-la-la-la-la-not-listening" because it's not going to change your mind anyway – and the other side is doing the exact same thing – so you can save time by not bothering to argue your points too.

Wow! Isn't this just a huge time-saving discovery?! And best of all, both sides can agree that it's true – right?

So I think we can at least agree that from now on, no minds are gonna be changed...not ever.

Yet you do need an article title. Sorry – you do actually have to come to a decision.

All we have left is to ask the Wikipedia guidelines what we do if the two sides in a title debate cannot reach consensus – which is what we have here. No consensus – and not even the remotest possibility of consensus.

The requisite guideline is WP:CONSENSUS – and it tells us quite clearly what happens next:

"In article title discussions, no consensus has two defaults: If an article title has been stable for a long time, then the long-standing article title is kept. 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."

So: Has the title been stable for a long time? Well, actually, it pretty much has. Despite a bazillion stupid arguments – amazingly it's been called "Sega Genesis" for a couple of years. That's "a long time".

But I guess the other side is 100% guaranteed to say "NO! IT HASN'T BEEN STABLE". That's not because they really believe that – it's because at this point, they can't stand to lose face and "stable for a long time" is a sufficiently fuzzy phrase that you can try to Wikilawyer it. So, OK what happens if it's not stable? Well, we look at the second rule: "the title used by the first major contributor the article ceased to be a stub"...which was...drum roll please: "Sega Genesis".

OK – game over – "Sega Genesis".

Is it "The Right Title"? Dunno – maybe – maybe not – don't give a fuck actually – I'm more than happy to have this article have completely the wrong name if it ends this ridiculous fight. Nobody other than the couple of dozen fanboys fighting about it here gives a damn anyway. Really – everyone outside of your little group here is pointing at you – laughing out loud – saying "What a bunch of complete idiots."....really – that's how everyone outside of your little debate group thinks of you. Really. Honestly. You look completely stupid.

So the title we have will do just fine. Mmmm'K?

Well, I can just tell that about half of you are disagreeing about the question of "stability", what a "stub" is and how big a "major" contribution has to be. Well, how about (at the very least) you cut out all of the other discussions (because they really don't matter) – and concentrate on this one single paragraph from WP:CONSENSUS – because that's the only way you guys have to get out of this mess. If you can at least narrow the debate to what those few sentences from WP:CONSENSUS mean – you'll stand a fighting chance of getting to a conclusion.

SteveBaker (talk) 02:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Yup, this is why I argued hard to keep this from starting up, and then stopped as soon as a speedy close wasn't feasible. So much wasted time, with no one's mind being changed. Complete waste of time, just like before. Sergecross73 msg me 02:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Both of the proposed titles are valid. Maybe one of them is infinitesimally better than the other, but neither one is wrong. Because of redirects, nobody is ever going to have trouble finding the article. Nobody is ever going to be confused about what the topic of the article is. Nothing is wrong here. Those of you who are arguing til you are blue in the face are fighting for the winning side of a 51/49 situation. In the grand scheme of the encyclopedia, this issue is nothing. It is a grain of sand. Why don't those of you driving this argument expend 1/10th of that energy into making a meaningful contribution to the VG project instead? Fueling this type of argument is worse than not contributing to Wikipedia at all. It just wastes peoples' time, creates bad feelings, and no real good can come of it. There are many articles in this space that cannot have a title that everyone can agree on. It is not worth anyone's time to battle endlessly about titles; it does not negatively affect the encyclopedia when a title is the inferior one by a fraction of a percent. There are policies to handle this situation, and they have already been explained many times in full.. --SubSeven (talk) 02:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep. What I'm really trying to say here is that because we're (presumably) all in agreement that no more than at most one or two people will ever change their minds – we have an irretrievably failed consensus. This isn't a case where you just have to persuade one or two holdouts to get the consensus you desire. No, no, no! Each side has to convince close to 50% of the debaters and because everyone had made their position irreversibly clear – there is simply no chance of that ever happening. Further debate on substantive points is therefore useless. So now we can state, clearly and with the full agreement of everyone who is not deliberately being obstructive that we have no consensus and we'll never get consensus. That being the case, we have to move from trying to form a consensus to interpreting that single paragraph from WP:CONSENSUS:

"In article title discussions, no consensus has two defaults: If an article title has been stable for a long time, then the long-standing article title is kept. 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."

IMHO, the answer is clear: "Sega Genesis". Not because it's the correct title for the article (although it might, coincidentally be) but because that's the name that Wikipedia guidelines require us to use if we can't come to a reasonable consensus in any other way. Done deal...problem solved. Sorry "MegaDrive" guys – that's the way the cookie crumbles.

SteveBaker (talk) 03:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm with you guys (SteveBaker, Subseven) but these arguments are perilously close to WP:Status quo stonewalling. --B2C 05:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

That article specifically cites this talk page, as a matter of fact. "If the same change seems to be repeatedly proposed, create an FAQ explaining the reasons supporting the status quo, and the reasons for opposing the frequently proposed change (e.g., Talk:Sega Genesis)." I think it's notable at this point, the ripples these talks have had throughout wikipeida.--SexyKick 05:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. That's why I said "perilously close". The line has not been crossed. --B2C 05:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

That line isn't even visible from here!! "Status quo stonewalling" is a totally different matter from "failure of consensus" policy!

1. WP:Status quo stonewalling defines Status quo stonewalling as "disruptive behavior in opposition to a change by taking advantage of the status quo rule". The WP:STATUSQUO rule isn't the one we're discussing here – that rule is about editing changes and reversion. I'm talking about what happens when there is no possibility of consensus. Hence the WP:Status quo stonewalling essay doesn't apply to this situation.
2. WP:Status quo stonewalling is just an essay – it's not even a guideline. WP:CONSENSUS is a formal policy document and what it says trumps essays which are nothing more than opinion pieces from some random person or group which have not even gotten widespread community consensus.
3. From WP:Status quo stonewalling: "stonewalling is typically used when those opposed to the change don't actually have a substantive objection to the proposed change, or when they know whatever argument they have can be easily refuted, or is contrary to consensus." – clearly this is not my motive here. I'm not opposed to change, I'm opposed to continual disputes. It's also incorrect to say that the arguments involved are easily refuted (if they were, we wouldn't be on the fourth or fifth round of RfC surrounding this name change!) – and it's not contrary to consensus because there is no consensus...nor any prospect of there ever being consensus.
4. I actually don't care whether the title of the article is changed or not – I just want this ridiculous bickering over something of absolutely monumental unimportance to stop. The fact that WP:CONSENSUS states that the status quo title is the correct one to use in this case does not in any way imply that I'm pushing it because it's the status quo.

But the bottom line is that WP:CONSENSUS is a policy document. What it says is the closest thing we have to law around here. In the absence of a clear consensus, the title of this article is determined by that paragraph of the policy that tells you what we do when there is no consensus for the choice of title of an article.

SteveBaker (talk) 06:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you 95%. The 5% reservation is because I believe we can't conclude with 100% objective certainty that it's impossible to achieve consensus here, and so we must allow discussion to make sure. That said, I think the discussion so far continues to show that if there is consensus, it's in favor of the current title, certainly not the proposed title. --B2C 07:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how you come to that conclusion (other than the fact it's also your own) when the current RfC shows an approximate 50/50 split for each name. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 12:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

SteveBaker, if you genuinely thought the article's title was as unimportant as you claim, you wouldn't have expended the energy in your posting to express as much. It seems highly hypocritical and dishonest to be claiming the article title doesn't matter now, when in previous discussions you've argued in favour of "Genesis". I believe most of the editors arguing the title is a minor issue, doesn't matter, is a waste of time, etc. (and going to great lengths to argue this) are being very transparent in their attempts to ensure the article title remains at their preferred choice of "Sega Genesis", rather than genuinely of the opinion the title doesn't matter. If you look back at previous title debates it's evident that most of these editors were deeply involved in previous debates arguing for a change to Genesis, when they had no such qualms about it being unimportant or a waste of time. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 12:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

You clearly are not reading, or not grasping what is being said here. He's not saying the title is unimportant, he's saying further discussion is useless because THERE IS NO CONSENSUS. --SubSeven (talk) 14:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

That's even worse. Pre-emptively claiming that no consensus exists while in the middle of an RfC is just outright disruptive and unhelpful. Basically that equates to him saying "there's no consensus on this, and you're idiots for trying to come to one, so let's leave the article title as it [which co-incidentally happens to be that author's preferred choice from previous debates]" Surely you can see how transparently unscrupulous that appears. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

When does it end? Do you think you're the first person to open an RfC on this issue? --SubSeven (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually this instance is different from previous RfC, in that it's proposing a revert to the longest serving name the article has had ("Mega Drive"), rather than attempting to change a long-standing article name to another one (which was the case when the article moved from "Mega Drive" to "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive" then later to "Sega Genesis". Those two previous moves were both misguided and not in like with policy, because A) the move from "Mega Drive" the compound title mean the title was no longer in line with naming policy, and B) once this was discovered the correct course of action would have been to revert to the stable title "Mega Drive" – not to change to another contentious and problematic title. This RfC is an attempt to revert to the most stable title this article has had (and in my opinion the one that meets criteria best in general). --85.211.130.47 (talk) 15:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

You really are bound and determine to WikiLawyer this issue to death until you get your way, aren't you? (Yes, go ahead and tell me I'm attacking you if you want. I'm well aware of the line I'm treading.) "Mega Drive" was given due consideration in the compromise title discussion, and it was decided at that time that instead of going back to the (in your words) "stable" title, they'd go with the Genesis title. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to read through the whole discussion for the reasons for doing so. You keep suggesting that that discussion doesn't count because it originated from the terrible compromise title, and thus it couldn't POSSIBLY be the case that a move back to "Mega Drive" was ever considered during that discussion. That's like claiming that you can't be given a speeding ticket because you were doing 90 on a freeway entrance as opposed to the freeway itself (where the speed limit signs say 60). — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I really don't understand the hostility coming from some editors on this topic. No-one is forcing you to take part in the debate. I feel it's worth debating and that's why I'm arguing my point, and I feel I've been fairly civil throughout, frankly. If – as some editors are saying – the article name discussion is a waste of energy and more important things could be being worked on, then what's preventing you from paying no heed to the RfC and dedicating your time elsewhere as you see fit? We all contribute to Wikipedia in the ways we feel are best, and it seems poor-form to me to try and dictate what editors should be focusing their energy. I suspect the article name is just as important to the editors who claim it's a waste of time, otherwise they wouldn't still be in the discussion and would instead be devoting their time elsewhere. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The apparent hostility coming toward you is due to the fact that people are sick and tired of this topic going nowhere, and we're tired of people arguing their points OVER AND OVER AND OVER again even when it's clear that the same old, tired arguments aren't working. If we were all to just "pay no heed" to this RFC because we were sick of discussing it, then you'd have carte blanche to make whatever changes you wanted without there being a need for any discussion or adherence to policy at all. We're not willing to just do that. What we want is closure.

Seriously, at what point do you realize that your arguments aren't working? I happen to agree with you that "Mega Drive" is the better name, but you don't see me keep beating the drum for it when it's obvious that I alone can't form or sway consensus, do you? I accuse you of WikiLawyering because you appear to be picking at every last tiny detail you can find to prove your point, going so far as to say "The basis for this and that statement in a community-provided FAQ doesn't have 100% fundamental backing in a published source, therefore it must be completely invalid and thrown out, Your Honor." (Some of your arguments above have read almost exactly like that – all we're missing is an impartial jury.) If what I'm saying sounds absurd, well, it's because I call it as I see it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

This is bordering on a blatant personal attack now. I've repeated my arguments because they've been misunderstood, or as replies to different people about the same topic. I'm participating in the discussion in a civil manner, and it doesn't matter how "sick and tired" people are regarding this topic, that isn't an excuse to behave in an incivil manner or attack other editors. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the concept of frustration? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but the onus is on you to control your frustration and not let it manifest itself as an abusive or hostile attitude, not on me to somehow adjust my level of participation in the debate to appease you. I'm not sure what the relevance of WP:POINT is here. --85.211.204.98 (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

@85.211: Oh come on, seriously. Are you really trying to suggest that, after several days and thousands of lines of discussion, debate and argument on this topic, that we really have a chance of achieving a clear consensus on this? The pattern is always the same: Someone gets a bee in their bonnet that the article title MUST CHANGE, NO MATTER WHAT, and they will argue it, canvass it and WikiLawyer it to death until it either descends into a war of petty insults or everyone on the opposing side says "Fuck it, do whatever you want, I don't care anymore". It's happened every single time this God-forsaken topic has come up.

I agree with SteveBaker here. The very fact that we're still here discussing this, we're still arguing semantics and technicalities about minute portions of WP policies, and we still haven't had a clear leaning one way or another (no matter HOW many times you say Mega Drive is the clear winner) means we do not have a consensus and we're not likely to have one. It would be better for the project as a whole to accept what we currently have in the absence of any compelling reason everyone can agree upon to change it and move on to more important matters. Like fixing the problems with the FAQ so that the current consensus decision makes more sense. Or perhaps fixing any issues you might find in the article itself. This discussion is truly pointless and needs to stop. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Fixing the FAQ is only going to make the current decision seem less valid though. The main issue with the FAQ is – as I've explained multiple times now – is that the points used in favour of Genesis (regardless of whether or not there was consensus over them at the time, as other editors have disputed existed) are unverified, and seemingly have no sources to back them up. This essentially discounts them as valid reasons unless sources can be found. You've said the onus is on me to prove they are incorrect, but it simply isn't, and may even be impossible. Consensus is not a substitute for verifiability. Of course, one solution which I didn't think of until now would be to reword the FAQ so the statements say "most editors thought" or "consensus agreed that" rather than outright asserting the statements as fact. This could solve the issue, as it reflects previous consensus, without making claims that can't be verified. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

See, this right here is why I accuse you of WikiLawyering. When it comes down to a wording change as minute as adding the phrase "Most editors thought" to explain what is fundamentally a consensus decision, it demonstrates a need to make things fit exactly, such that nobody needs to risk having to apply common sense to it. The FAQ was never intended to state things as fact. By its very nature and definition, it reflects what "most editors thought". Are you really telling me that a consensus FAQ has to be written to the same level as a legal contract in order to be valid? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see the big problem here. What's wrong with improving the FAQ to more accurately reflect consensus/facts? I don't think the distinction is that minor either. In it's current form it implies the statements are impartial fact, under my proposal/compromise (which is easily made and wouldn't remove anything from the FAQ) it makes it clear that this was the consensus decided upon. What's harmful about this suggestion? I've already said this issue isn't that big a deal to me, all I'm doing is replying to the ongoing conversation about it. I do think we've reached a point where you need to step back and consider why it is you apparently have such a problem with me, and if you're misconstruing what I'm saying. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

So then let's tidy up the FAQ and draw these discussions to a close. I happen to agree with Kiefer; we're not going to make anymore progress, and I note that he's the specific reason we didn't end up speedy closing this (I actually had the opportunity to speedy close it, but I wanted to stay neutral).--SexyKick 21:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I only called "not speedy close" because I saw that the "speedy close" folks were split roughly 50/50 between the two proposed names, which basically meant at the time that speedy-closing it wouldn't have made much sense. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

If all you'd wanted to do was clean up the FAQ, there wouldn't be anywhere near the kind of acrimony toward your tactics as there is. But you went far beyond that – you were trying to claim that the FAQ as a whole should be tossed out, along with the previous consensus decision and all of the arguments contained within it, because it had flaws. I don't know how much more simply we can explain this to you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

My original suggestion was that we should temporarily remove the FAQ until the naming dispute was over, as I think it stifles debate on the topic by asserting these statements as fact. Feel free to disagree but the fact I proposed that does not entitle you to the hostility and borderline personal attacks you've been making against me ever since. I'll also note it was just that, a proposal, and once some editors said they were against the idea, I mentioned multiple times that was OK, that I wasn't overly concerned with the issue, and didn't expect there to be a dispute over it. I then merely went on to continue the discussion in a civil manner about why the FAQ was flawed, as some editors apparently didn't understand the point I was making (that previous consensus is different from statement of fact). I'm sorry if you found this topic frustrating for whatever reason, but that still doesn't justify your attitude. I'll also note that I wasn't the only editor that took issue with the FAQ, as others have reiterated my points (prompting you to ask then if I was their sockpuppet). --85.211.204.35 (talk) 10:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it's time to start for us to start being a little controversial.

Believe it or not, there is still an error. Yes, I think there is still an inaccuracy, and that this supposed problem is hurting this encyclopedia a little bit. The power of redirects, as you've all stated such, should encourage us to default to the original, more accurate name as much as possible. That's a huge deal, but we don't have to take it so far with this case at least; both names are considered equally valid, so we just need to figure out whether one is more so beyond any kind of "stability" clause or other base red tape.

I think that's totally possible, but not the way it's being done here. I'll be honest... I don't know if I can trust a consensus that was operating under the assumption that the entire RfC was malicious, or even a consensus that is motivated by strong baseless opinions (chief among them being "I hate talking about this issue and want it to die"); simply put, I don't believe much of the consensus established here has been particularly interested in actual discussion.

Sadly, since basic consistency doesn't seem to be possible, what we need is a limited discussion among certain people that know to put some facts and reason into their opinions. Honestly I don't even know if such a thing would be valid ever, but it's all I can think of, so I'm just gonna throw it out there. Despatche (talk) 11:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a committee of editors who actually think the article title is important and worth debating – as oppose to editors who claim it doesn't matter, and ranting about what a waste of time it is – would help drown out a lot of the unhelpful background noise and let people make fact-based arguments from both sides on the issue. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 12:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, you can't just decide to do that... That's absolutely not how Wikipedia works with building consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 14:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It can be done through the arbitration committee, and I've seen similar disputes settled that way before. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Really? You've seen it before on your real Wikipedia account, not the IP address you are using now, which hasn't been used for anything other than this issue, other than a few things two years before. [7] And the first thing you did was canvass people you believed would see things your way to come and discuss this issue. Dream Focus 14:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

As I've said already, I have a dynamic IP, which automatically changes every few days. My chosen way to use Wikipedia is not to make an account, and is just as valid as having one. You're bordering on making a personal attack. Please see WP:HUMAN. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 15:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Many of us participated in the previous discussions. Everything was already discussed, there nothing new here. Consensus was clear. The words of a few IP editors with no other edits, and those they canvassed to come here, don't change that. Dream Focus 14:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

If we used the argument that previous consensus overrules current discussion then clearly we would be back at "Mega Drive", since repeated attempts to change from Mega Drive to Genesis were always denied. There's has never been a consensus to move from "Mega Drive" to "Sega Genesis". --85.211.130.47 (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it was. The FAQ even links to that discussion. Talk:Sega Genesis/Archive 15#Requested move (November 2011) The closing administrator said "Closed with clear consensus to move to Sega Genesis". Dream Focus 15:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

That was an RfC to move to "Sega Genesis" from "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive", the main issue being that the article title was inconsistent with policy, and many editors not caring whether "Mega Drive" or "Sega Genesis" was used, as long as it wasn't the compound title. As I said, there has never been a consensus to move from "Mega Drive" to "Sega Genesis" and there has in fact been plenty consensus opposing such a move, as evidenced from the multiple RfC where such a proposed move was rejected. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The was a strawpoll about this also. The discussion was all over the place. I don't feel like searching out links, but I remember the discussions. Instead of you violating the WP:Canvass rule and only contacting people to join this discussion who previously voted the way you want things to go, perhaps we could just call everyone back who participated, and do it all again if that ends this discussion quicker. Dream Focus 15:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

As I said, none of that is relevant as the debate was about changing to "Sega Genesis" from the compound title "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive", not changing from "Mega Drive". Again, there has never been a consensus to move from "Mega Drive" to "Sega Genesis", and you won't find any reference to demonstrate there was, because it doesn't exist. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Except Mega Drive was considered as well. Plus arbitration happened then too. See Lamest Edit Wars Ever.--SexyKick 15:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

That still doesn't mean there was a consensus to move from "Mega Drive to "Sega Genesis". The fact "Mega Drive" was thrown in as an option amongst several others, rather than a straight "Mega Drive" or "Sega Genesis" makes the decision even less clear cut. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Except it did come down to those two.--SexyKick 17:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a few accusations going on there, Dream Focus. I've read large chunks of this whole mess, and I don't understand the anger directed at this IP. Sure, they may have been a little brusque, but their main point is quite sound, even if it is specifically covered in the FAQ. They probably simply don't edit Wikipedia much, but happened to see this issue, felt it was in error, and decided to start an RfC. I've went through the archives too; there's been a lot of contention over this article from both sides, especially at the original discussion. There were also a large number of people who simply wanted the article to be moved away from the compound, since it went directly from the compound to Genesis; this is very important. It's quite clear that a good number of people on both sides were motivated by pure anger, and that a good number of people on "the Genesis side" simply wanted the argument to be over and didn't really care about the merits of the title anymore, no more clear than now. As for the straw poll, even the people on "the Genesis side" considered it to be non-binding, and very few editors from the discussions actually participated (for example, Miremare, one of the biggest "Mega Drive side" people, did not).

Never mind what happened after, good lord. There is no doubt that we can't get a serious consensus without strong opposition talking about it for archive-worth after archive-worth, and all of this is actually seriously bothering people; we need a new discussion, and it needs a different approach. I'm not sure ArbCom is that answer, though. Despatche (talk) 15:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom isn't definitely isn't the answer – they specifically do not adjudicate on content matters. It's for disciplinary action against problematic editors. Wikipedia:Arbitration says "The Committee...does not exist to...adjudicate matters of article content (Wikipedia has no "content committee"), or to decide matters of editorial or site policy." – I suppose these recurrent title debates might be classified as trolling or disruptive editing – but I'd be wary of invoking ArbCom on those grounds because the likely consequence would likely to be the content-banning of a large percentage of the debaters on both sides of the argument! I doubt anyone who has participated here would come out of it smelling of roses! SteveBaker (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I think some of the issue directed towards this IP is the that they have removed certain comments they didn't like, they tried to mislead people into thinking the 2003 Genesis article was a stub (by linking the wrong date), they pretend like history didn't happen, and their arguments are mostly "throw away this piece of information because it shouldn't matter or skews things".--SexyKick 17:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I removed certain comments from the FAQ as I believed (and still do) that they were misleading and unverified, and damaging to a neutral debate. I explained my reasons on the talk page, but once they were reverted made no further efforts to delete them, but instead argued my reasoning in the talk page. This is completely standard Wikipedia practise and in no way constitutes a negative behavior. I was under the impression I linked the version of the original Genesis article immediately prior to it becoming to it becoming "Sega Megadrive", if this was not the case and I mistakenly linked a previous version, why not correct this and link the more up to date version rather than assuming bad faith on my part? By the "throw this away" arguments, I assume you are referring to my issues in the FAQ where points are listed in favour of Genesis; I've made quite clear my reasoning for why these points are misleading and without evidence, but not a single editor has made a counter argument to support them, but instead pedantically argued that they must remain as they represent consensus. As I've said before, if people really want to the FAQ to remain as is, then fair enough, but that doesn't change the fact that many of the arguments in it simply are dubious at best and baseless at worst for the reasons I've already mentioned --85.211.130.47 (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The IP editor is not someone who just happened on by, this is quite evident from his canvassing --SubSeven (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I mentioned to a few previously involved editors that an RfC was taking place. If that counts as canvassing then the same label should be applied to SexyKick's actions. [8], [9] --85.211.130.47 (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. You seriously believe that after having this exact same debate for at least three or four times...with absolutely no substantive new aargumentss...and with no signs of anyone wavering in their positions...and a straight 50/50 split...that a couple of more weeks of acrimonious argument and mud slinging is going too have any chance whatever of consensus? You really believe that?!?! Wow! Well WP:AGF and all. Good with that. Meanwhile, be aware that everyone else is having a good laugh at your expense. SteveBaker (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Yup.

Like I said way back when 85.211 first showed up here, at the end of all this debate, either the RFC will be closed as no-consensus, or someone will call a !vote which will actually be treated as a real vote where people will undoubtedly vote down strict "party lines" and Genesis will come out ahead thanks to the USA's large segment of WP editors.

Everything before that is just window-dressing and/or entertainment for people who enjoy that sort of thing. APL (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Its not because we're Americans, its because it was called Genesis when it was first released in its first English speaking nation. In Japan, you often have magazines which decorate their covers with some English words but have no English in them. So whatever decoration they may have used on their box isn't relevant. And we add Sega to the name because otherwise we'd have to call it Genesis (video game console) to separate it from other things called Genesis. Dream Focus 22:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Yes, it's because you're Americans; everything else is you trying to sneak your way out of the light and back within the red tape. Meanwhile, I'm just going to go and ignore the faux-racism nonsense and make two things very clear: the original name is the most important, and we would use "Sega Genesis" only because the company name is part of the product's name. There are actually at least three titles for this product, but no one seems to have noticed that!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Despatche (talk • contribs)

The policy says English language title, not first title in an English speaking nation. Is this really the desperation of Genesis supports now, that you have to pretend there is policy to support you? Or are you pretending that Mega Drive isn't in English? I can't work it out. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 18:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

But it doesn't matter. Here on Wikipedia, we call them "!votes" – the "!" means "NOT"...you are not voting because Wikipedia isn't a democracy. You're gauging the consensus. What that means is you're asking whether almost everyone has now agreed on an answer. Let me repeat that: "Almost everyone". A 51% majority isn't enough, neither is a 70% majority, not even 90%. You have to have essentially everyone in agreement. A few individual hold-outs can be ignored – but not a large number of them.

You're NEVER going to get that.

Why?

• Because we've done this before – several times in fact – and never once have we managed to convince anyone to change their minds about what the article should be called. No once.
• Because people have solidified their views and taken extreme positions on opposite sides of the debate. There is nobody left in the middle considering the arguments and trying to decide which way they come down on the answer.
• Because there are no significantly new arguments. Without exception, all of the factual points about the name selection that have been made so far were made more than once in previous debates. They didn't sway the decision then – and they won't sway it again now.
• It's gone beyond logic. We're now in a situation where people see this as trench warfare. Both sides will go to any lengths whatever to prove their positions – and will gainsay anything the opposition comes up with.
• It truly is stupid to go on believing that somehow you'll find some tiny factual wrinkle that nobody noticed before in the history of this console that can be brought to the table that'll make almost everyone go "Oohhhhh! Wow! I didn't know that! That means that I must be completely wrong!"...and that's what it would take now to make a consensus. If such a key fact existed, you (or the other side) would have trotted it out by now – either in this debate on in one of the dozen or so that preceded it. Without a killer argument like that, there is truly no chance of forming a consensus here.

It's over – there is no consensus, there never has been a particularly solid consensus, there is no prospect of ever getting a consensus. It's a total waste of everyone's time to try to form one because nobody seems to want to change their minds – and that's what it takes.

Sorry but it really, really is over. Close this damned thing per WP:CONSENSUS and let everyone get on with working on the article.

SteveBaker (talk) 01:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

In the absence of consensus, what is WP:CONSENSUS saying?

One or two editors aside – I think the vast majority of editors agree that we're never getting consensus on "The Right Name" for this article.

That throws us onto the rule in WP:CONSENSUS that says:

"In article title discussions, no consensus has two defaults: If an article title has been stable for a long time, then the long-standing article title is kept. 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."

So we're left making two decisions:

1. Has the article title been "stable" and "for a long time"? If so then that title is to be kept.
2. If not, then what is "the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub"?

So we have a complicated decision tree to traverse:

1. Stability for a long time:
   1. Stability: Here's the problem – does "stable" mean "unchanging" or does it mean "without serious debate"?
      1. If it means "unchanging" then the present title has been stable for two and a half years – which I would suggest is "a long time". Certainly not as long as it was called "MegaDrive" – but that's not the standard that WP:CONSENSUS states – it's not "the title the article had for the longest time". It's a test of whether the present title should be allowed to stand because it's been stable for a long time.
      2. If it means "without serious debate" then the present title is certainly not "stable" – but the "Mega Drive" title was around for around five years and the debates and arguments raged for the whole time. If lots of debate means that there was no stability – then the article has really never had a stable title.
   2. For a long time? Is two and a half years "A long time"? Is five years "A long time"? A month? Dunno – I'd say that a year is plenty enough to demonstrate that a title has withstood debate for "a long time".
2. First used by a major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub.
   1. Did the article stop being "a stub" before it was first renamed "Mega Drive"? Well, the last version of "Sega Genesis" prior to the rename to "MegaDrive" contained 5 paragraphs, 13 full sentences (not including the "Specs" section – which adds 10 more). It was 443 words long, 2,710 characters. So the question is: "Is that more than a stub?"
      1. According to WP:STUB, there are a heck of a lot of different criteria employed to determine stubhood.
         1. "A stub is an article containing only one or a few sentences of text that, although providing some useful information, is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, and that is capable of expansion." Well, the last version was MUCH more than "a few sentences" – nobody calls thirteen "one or a few". That's long enough to be considered more than a stub – but arguably is way too short to "provide encyclopdic coverage" of this subject. Figuring out when it was long enough to provide "encyclopedic coverage" is difficult...and in any case, WP:STUB says "Sizable articles are usually not considered stubs, even if they have significant problems or are noticeably incomplete."...so size counts – even if encyclopedic coverage isn't present.
         2. "Editors may decide that an article with more than ten sentences is too big to be a stub or that articles with more than 250 words is too big to be a stub." – So, definitely far too big to be a stub under this criterion.
         3. "Others follow the Did you know? standard of 1,500 characters in the main text." – The article had 2,710 characters – so still not a stub.
         4. "AutoWikiBrowser is frequently set to automatically remove stub tags from any article with more than 500 words." – So at 443 words, AutoWikiBrowser wouldn't routinely remove a stub tag...but it's close.
         5. "There is no set size at which an article stops being a stub. While very short articles are very likely to be stubs, there are some subjects about which very little can be written. Conversely, there are subjects about which a lot could be written, and their articles may still be stubs even if they are a couple of paragraphs long." – Five paragraphs is a lot more than "a couple" – so providing there was.
         6. "the user essay on the Croughton-London rule may be of use when trying to judge whether an article is a stub" – OK:
            1. "Stubs have very little text. Text here refers only to written sentences of information – it excludes images, infoboxes, navigation templates, lists of examples, external links, and any of the other items which may be found on an article, all of which are ostensibly there for the purposes of supporting the actual text of the article. Thus, what may seem to be a long article may in fact be a one-paragraph stub with "peripheral add-ons"." – No, the article was of "non-stub-length" without considering any of those things.
            2. "Thus, a stub is a stub not just by dint of its length, even taking into consideration whether it is an article and how much of that length is text. It also has to be judged in terms of the relative importance of the subject of the article, and what can easily be written about it. And that, sadly, is both an arbitrary process and one that cannot be done by bot alone." – Not much help there then!

I maintain that the consequence of the WP:CONSENSUS rule is that either:

• You consider a title that's debated but not changed often to be stable – in which case "Sega Genesis" has been the stable title for over two years – so it's the one we should choose.

...OR...

• You consider a title that's debated frequently to be unstable – in which case both "Sega Genesis" and "Mega Drive" were unstable – and we must fall back on the second clause in WP:CONSENSUS – which is to ask what the article title was in the first major edit after it ceased to be a stub. By all reasonable measures, the article was no longer a stub when it was originally named "Sega Genesis" – so that is the title it had when the first major non-stub edit was made.

Either way, the conclusion is the same.

QED.

SteveBaker (talk) 03:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I just want to make sure you used the real last version of Sega Genesis before the creation of Sega Megadrive.--SexyKick 04:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, no – I picked an earlier version that I judged to be the first that was not a stub. But your version is even longer – and would certainly pass the "AutoWikiBrowser would automatically remove any stub template" test. But you can pick almost any version around that time and get more or less the same result. Bottom line is that the article transitioned from stub to non-stub while it was called "Sega Genesis" – and that's the test. SteveBaker (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Steve, this is a very good writeup. Thanks. Since I'm in the process of vetting an update to the FAQ on this issue, would you mind if I provide a link to your specific edit on this as a summary of the conclusion of this current discussion (assuming it ends here)? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

By all means. SteveBaker (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you've given a couple of points a fair crack of the whip there Steve

• "but the "Mega Drive" title was around for around five years and the debates and arguments raged for the whole time." The debates were nowhere near as regular, and nowhere near as vociferous.

• "it's not "the title the article had for the longest time". It's a test of whether the present title should be allowed to stand because it's been stable for a long time." – This is your interpretation of the guideline. This won't solve the problem; as this is the exact same rule that should have been used against the dodgy two-step move from Mega Drive. When the compromise name failed, the article should have been moved back to Mega Drive.

What you've done is good Steve, but this article is beyond Guidelines, either name will never be accepted. It needs the Judgment of Solomon. - X201 (talk) 08:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think your first point can be read to mean that the title was stable back then and that the current title is not – if you judge "stability" by a lack of debate then neither title could remotely be considered "stable" – you might argue that one title was somewhat less unstable than the other – but it's a hell of a stretch to put a line in the sand on that basis. Besides, I believe that the intent of the rule is that very recent (like in an ongoing edit war) titles should be ignored and that the pre-edit war title should be the one you revert to. I don't think their use of the phrase "the long-standing article title is kept" – "kept" meaning keeping the recent title that's been stable for a while. I see no sense here of "revert to a title from years in the past" in this guideline. SteveBaker (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

@X201: "The debates [when "Mega Drive" was the title] were nowhere near as regular, and nowhere near as vociferous." Uh... really? Were you even there for them? I remember them spanning many more pages of text across multiple discussion areas back then. This debate, vociferous as it is, is nothing compared to those. To my eye, the main reason it's getting as heated as it is is because a number of us just want it to end. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

By "Judgment of Solomon", I assume you mean the compromise title and not a literal split into two articles? (Solomon was bluffing anyway.)

The compromise title is what brought me to this article to the first place, and I'm still strongly against it.

A naming dispute that will never completely satisfy everyone is not unique. There are a lot of them on Wikipedia. Many higher profile than this article. (And lower profile too, of course.) The idea that this one article needs to be special cased is clearly wrong. APL (talk) 12:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

We looked at many different "compromise" titles in the last major debate on this – and not one of them passes muster with Wikipedia policies. The only acceptable titles seem to be "Sega Genesis" and "Mega Drive". SteveBaker (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Put those policies down for five seconds--just five!--and understand what we actually have here. There is acknowledgement that we have country-based biases going on; that should tell you something. There is acknowledge that people really truly do not care or care too much for both sides to the point that either title could be considered valid; that should tell you something. This is when you come to realize that there's really only one argument that still works: the original title is "Mega Drive". That is an argument that supersedes all others, and it should have ended this "battle" a very long time ago; that should tell you something.

The problem with these "tiebreaker" rules is that they're specifically designed to ignore merit. What's the point of that? Understand that by moving this to "Sega Genesis" and allowing all other related articles to stay as they are, you've destroyed consistency and destroyed the meaning of consensus; understand that many of these requested moves show that there was an error in the original discussion; understand that key people would prefer to hide in red tape instead of just accepting the facts.

Here's the worst tiebreaker rule of them all: "When a company has marketed a product under two different names and no other reason can be found to choose one or the other for the title of the article about that topic, instead of combining both names in the title, choose the product name for the title which is first in alphabetical order". To follow such a rule would be childish, even if it applied here.

There's your "QED". Despatche (talk) 12:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Haha! You honestly don't think that someone from the "other side" couldn't have written that exact comment except with a different "only one argument"?

They would believe it just as much as you do. Honestly. It's a sad fact of the way our primitive brains work.

It's become painfully clear that there is no killer argument here, but instinctively we all think there's an obvious one that everyone else is too stubborn to acknowledge.

That's why the "tie-breaker" rules ignore arguments based on merit. That's the tie they're breaking. APL (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Each side thinks that they have killer arguments – and that if only they could get the other side to understand them (or actually read them, or stop being so idiotic, or check the references – or something) – then everyone could agree and the problem would be solved. But both sides firmly believe those exact same things. That's why so many thousands of lines of text have been expended on pushing the same handful of arguments back and forth for so many years without changing a single person's mind! Neither side seems to understand that their arguments are not sufficient to convince the other side and that no new arguments are forthcoming. The factual debate is done. We have the results of that debate and the result is that: "No one title is agreed to be the best." – that's it. That's been the clear, unchanging conclusion of endless rounds of this debate. It truly doesn't matter whether you're right or wrong about the title at this point because you can't convince the other people (who feel EXACTLY the same way you do). Because Wikipedia doesn't operate by voting on issues like this, convincing one or two other people to switch sides won't help. You have to convince nearly all of them – and that's simply impossible at this point.

The situation is that neither side has made convincing arguments that their title is correct for factual reasons. You have both quite utterly failed to do that in a very major way. Neither set of arguments is sufficiently convincing to form a consensus.

So we are indeed down to "tie breaker" arguments. Things that are arbitrary, mostly imperfect choices that are put there to deal with this exact situation.

• Seen from the perspective of one of you guys down in the trenches of this debate, that seems like the worst thing in the entire world! I can certainly see your perspective on this – but if you can't form a consensus (and you definitely can't) then you're doomed to a coin flip solution.

• Seen from the perspective of your readership and Wikipedians outside of this debate – that's a very good thing. The arguments stop. The lack of consensus is acknowledged – the coin is proverbially flipped – and we choose one of the titles according to the kinda random rule in WP:CONSENSUS. The article gets a stable title and a simple redirect and first-lede sentence covers any possible lack of navigation or any confusion that might result from having a slightly imperfect title. Ongoing warfare ceases here because you can now tell random trolls who pop up and say "Why isn't the title XYZ?" that Wikipedia's policies require it to be so in the event of there being no consensus. If the new round of trolling persists, you just need a handful of people who are not in favor of XYZ to say "I am not persuaded by your argument – so there is no consensus and WP:CONSENSUS applies."

SteveBaker (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I take issue here though with two points: A) the majority of arguments in favour of "Sega Genesis" just seem to go straight to tiebreaker rules and lack of consensus and bypass debate on the actual merits of each title altogether. Reading this talk page I would estimate about 80% of the pro-Genesis arguments are based on that rather than on why Sega Genesis is a more suitable title in its own right. B) A simple disambiguation in the first sentence of the article isn't going to solve all the issues with choosing "Sega Genesis" as the title, it's problematic throughout the entire article as everytime "Genesis" is used in reference to the console outside North America, it's going to need to be clarified via side-statement or comments in parenthesis in order to be accurate. You also end up with edits like this [10] where rigid-adherence to policy (that the article title has to come first) is negatively affecting the wording of the article itself and making it read more awkwardly. --85.211.204.35 (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You shouldn't be "taking issue" here. As it happens, I strongly agree with you – but that doesn't change the outcome – or one single word I've written about this.

You're absolutely right about (A) – but it's because most people here have heard all of those arguments time after time before, they aren't convinced by them this time, just like they weren't before. The bottom line here is that it doesn't matter what the factual arguments are or are not, whether they are right or wrong, good or bad. You're stunningly beautiful, fully referenced gorgeously debated points simply aren't convincing enough – THE END. Unless you somehow convince those people of your position (which you most certainly cannot) – then you don't have a consensus – and Wikipedia policy says that the tiebreaker rules apply. It doesn't matter whether you consider their arguments to be garbage or not...you haven't convinced them – and they haven't convinced you. So like it or not, the tiebreaker rule applies. Sorry – but that's how it is.

I believe you're right about (B) too – but that's an entirely different matter from what title you choose. I believe that if everyone could settle this ridiculously pointless debate and put the titling matter aside (imprefectly – but per long standing Wikipedia core policy), then you could work together to improve the article in ways like this. Think carefully about which name should be used in the context of which part of the article. Nobody here wants to negatively impact the article itself. That's a MUCH more serious matter than the choice of title.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Well point (B) is why I feel so strongly about this issue. Let's face it, the article at present is problematic; it often reads confusingly and seemingly backward in places (like the edit I just pointed out). If "Mega Drive" is the title then it automatically corrects the majority of these issues, with North America-specific issues being the only exception, as oppose to the console in general. If the title was just "Sega Genesis" and the rest of article was written using the title sin proper context then it wouldn't be such a big deal, but sadly the editors that are in favour of Genesis being the title, seem to be utterly opposed to having "Mega Drive" used in the article period, or used first, again as this edit [11] demonstrates. I do think the North American version is particularly notable in it's own right, for the record, but not to the extent that it dominates over every other version and deserves to be used as the article title when a non-region specific International name exists. The notability of the Genesis should be dealt with with it's own specific section, detailing the history of that particular variant in particular and issues unique to it, rather than slanting the entire article towards being solely about the North American version at the expense of all others – which is how it reads now. --85.211.204.35 (talk) 14:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, tiebreaker rules are just that, to be used when there's no other way to distinguish between which title is more appropriate. That isn't the case here, but the pro-Genesis party are automatically defaulting to tiebreaker rules to justify their argument, rather than engage in actual debate over the merits of each title. If we look at the table of points in favour of each name, which seems to have been completely ignored, we can see that two of the points in favour of Genesis are tiebreaker policies, rather than actual reasons for why Genesis is the more appropriate name. I've seen very little argument on this talk page in favour of "Sega Genesis" on it's actual merit, with the vast majority of pro-Genesis arguments being that the title doesn't matter and we should be focusing on other things, that no consensus can ever be reached, or using tiebreaker policies to justify it. --85.211.204.35 (talk) 12:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, if you insist.

[Deep breath] The console should be called Genesis because that's the first english-language name. ...Because that's the largest single sales region. ...because the majority of sales to english-speaking nations was Genesis. ...Because USA had more gaming press than UK/Australia and therefore more English sources call it Genesis. And because that was the first non-stub article and this is an eng/var issue.

I can argue that the Megadrive arguments are invalid, too! The "First name" argument for Megadrive is invalid because we all know that if the first name had been an unpronounceable pile of Japanese characters nobody would be arguing for it. The "many nations vs Three Nations" argument is invalid because common names are about people, not about land-masses. The consistency with other articles argument is invalid because that's not a valid policy reason to change an article, and because those other articles could be changed also. Did I miss any? Doesn't matter.

(The details for all these arguments can be found elsewhere on this page, so debate them there. Debating my casual, one-liner summaries here would be dumb as a rock.)

You see? There's more than enough arguments on both sides for anyone and anybody to just take the ones that fit their preconceived notions, and assume that the others are unimportant distractions that are probably bad faith.

It's all evenly matched enough that nobody has to change their mind, ever! Hooray! Everyone can pick and choose which arguments are IMPORTANT and which aren't.

Everyone can find enough good arguments that they feel justified, intelligent, and honest for choosing the name they grew up with. (And human nature ensures that people will find those arguments, and discount the others.)

APL (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I know you don't want to debate this here, but you claim "Genesis because that's the first english-language name" when what you presumably mean is "Genesis because that's the first name used in an English-speaking country". "Mega Drive" is indisputably the first English-language name, as the words are clearly English. The fact it was released under this English name in Japan first is irrelevant to the language of the name itself. It's not suddenly in Japanese just because it was released there. --85.211.204.35 (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

"should be called Genesis because that's the first english-language name" – no it isn't

"Because that's the largest single sales region. ...because the majority of sales to english-speaking nations was Genesis" – sales are irrelevant, unless you can point out where they are mentioned in WP:CRITERIA

"Because USA had more gaming press than UK/Australia and therefore more English sources call it Genesis" – so the only English-speaking people in the world live in the USA, UK and Australia? Also, extrapolations are not fact.

"because that was the first non-stub article" – what has that got to do with anything? The policy says "the title used by the major contributor"

"The "First name" argument for Megadrive is invalid because we all know that if the first name had been an unpronounceable pile of Japanese characters nobody would be arguing for it" – but it wasn't Japanese, it was English, so how is that relevant? I don't see how this is anything other than a cheap attempt to invoke xenophobia as an argument.

"The "many nations vs Three Nations" argument is invalid because common names are about people, not about land-masses" – so now you want to count population separately? A minute ago you were pretending the majority of English speakers in the world didn't exist simply because they don't live in one of three countries!

"The consistency with other articles argument is invalid because that's not a valid policy reason to change an article, and because those other articles could be changed also" – Why does the policy exist if acting on it is never valid? Are you really suggesting that changing all the other articles instead of just 1 article is a better way of achieving consistency?

"You see? There's more than enough arguments on both sides" – and now do you see that the arguments on one of the sides are almost all invalid? Great, we're 1 person closer to reaching consensus! <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 19:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hahahaahahaha! You proved my point for me even after I specifically pointed out that trap!

That was fantastic. APL (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

My point is that the Genesis side is based on policy abuse and denial of fact; that you dismiss me pointing out this as 'part of the pointless debate' just goes to prove my point, ultimately. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 02:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Really? Not one of the arguments on the "Genesis side" has been based on sources, logical arguments or policies? Not a single one? All of those people (and the neutral folks like myself who see things to support on their side) are all engaging in policy abuse? So much for WP:AGF. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

"all engaging in policy abuse? So much for WP:AGF" – I didn't say it was deliberate abuse. And I didn't say 'all' either, some people don't seem to consider policy at all. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 16:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're being awfully blatant in your assumptions of bad faith here (especially with this edit). — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I guess we just have different definitions of bad faith then. To my mind the critical component is that it has to be deliberate. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 02:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh come on, you directly accused a large group of people of abusing policy and whining until they got their way, at least several times. If that's not an accusation of deliberate behavior, then wow, someone go inform the schools so other kids don't learn the wrong thing. In particular, I'm calling you out on "It's clear that one side ... is going to ignore all fact and policies in perpetuity...", "Do not waste your time // perversions of procedure", and "You talk as if quashing policy abuse wouldn't improve all articles" (the last of which was in response to me trying to get you to actually read the policy we were arguing about, because you clearly misunderstood it, and several of us agreed on that point). I'm sure you can come up with all sorts of explanations about what you really meant, but on this end those are pretty darned blatant bad-faith statements. If you're going to accuse me of saying "Fuck AGF", you had better be sure you're not doing it yourself. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, if those school kids you talk about have the same incorrect understanding of the meaning of the word abuse as you do, maybe somebody should go inform them. And don't draw parallels between me and you, I have accused nobody of doing anything in bad faith, I find it offensive that you are the one going around accusing people of WikiLawyering at every opportunity and you show the hubris to accuse me of not following AGF? Pots and kettles come to mind. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 09:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Arguing about semantics, dictionary definitions and extremely strict letter interpretations of a word or policy in order to discredit or alter its usage (in direct opposition to common sense) is the very definition of WikiLawyering. I call it for what it is, and I'm not the only one who used the term during this dispute. I just happen to be one of those people who doesn't suffer this sort of thing lightly.

Again, have you actually read any of the policies and essays? Have you read WP:LAWYER? Perhaps if you did, you'd see WHY I use the term so much – this dispute has been chock-full of it. Points 2 and 3 particularly apply here, and point 4 has been happening on both sides. I don't have to assume bad faith to point that out – a bad-faith assumption on my part would be to say that you're deliberately ignoring policies in favor of whining and bitching about the title just to piss everyone else off. (Not a whole lot unlike some of your recent comments, actually.)

And as I draw that parallel, you (hopefully) can start to see how difficult it's becoming to keep stretching WP:AGF so thin. I said in another part of this conversation, when you accused me of saying "Fuck AGF", that there's only so much good faith one can assume before it becomes ridiculous. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You should also read WP:GAMING – elements of what's described in that article have also happened numerous times in this dispute. Also, since the Wikilawyer page points out that we must be careful to tread the line between an offense and an insult, I will happily explain the context for any of my Wikilawyering accusations, as a show of good faith. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

"Arguing about semantics, dictionary definitions and extremely strict letter interpretations of a word or policy in order to discredit or alter its usage (in direct opposition to common sense) is the very definition of WikiLawyering" – OK, go ahead and point out where I have done such a thing. This should be interesting.

"Again, have you actually read any of the policies and essays?" – the very fact that you can ask me this question and at the same time accuse me of wikilawyering is pretty strong evidence that you're simply trolling. Answer me this simple question: is it possible to wikilawyer without knowing what the policy says? <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 18:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

(ahem):

• "Stevebaker, your aptitude for misinterpreting policies and even the meaning of basic words is impressive. Firstly: stable means unchanging. I'm not sure what dictionary you have been using, ..."
• "And finally, regarding the second tiebreaker, why have you ignored what the policy actually says? It doesn't, as you imply, say "the title of the article when it stopped being a stub", it says "the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub". I mean, you pasted it, did you nobody would read it? The first major contributor was the only major contributor at that time. He used both titles. That tiebreaker is useless in this case. I am seriously tired of Genesis proponents abusing policy to get their way."
  • This last quote is a good example of what's meant by lawyering a point: Clinging to the exact letter of a policy while ignoring its spirit and intent. SteveBaker's analysis of the events leading up to the initial article split is accurate and verifiable, but you kept arguing that because of the relatively minute difference between the "non-stub" edit and the article split, we should completely throw out the use of that policy. (Basically, you started cherry-picking which editors could be considered "major contributors" regardless of the actual state of the article, apparently using "major contributor" as the sole point on which to judge the validity of the argument.) Perhaps I should have asked if you understood the intent of the policies rather than just asking if you'd read them.

To be fair, most of my "WikiLawyering" accusations were directed at the IP editor, not you. He had engaged in that heavy-handed policy wrangling much more so than you did. And at one point I used the term against you regarding a FAQ edit – it was inappropriate there, and I apologize. I do believe you were being needlessly pedantic about it, but that's not the same complaint. And that doesn't change my assertion that you've been accusing others of acting in bad faith. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes I will admit that in my frustration some of my wording was uh, undiplomatic. But I stand by my point regarding the tierbreaker – as I have said elsewhere somewhere (who even knows where now look at this page!) if the spirit of the rule was simply to use the title as it was at that moment in time the policy would surely (to my mind anyway) have been written much more simply. It certainly reads like it was deliberately written to say what it says. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 19:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

NO! That's not what the tiebreaker is for. That's the fundamental misunderstanding that's uselessly perpetuating this debate. The WP:CONSENSUS tiebreaker is NOT for when there is no other way to distinguish the correct title. It's for when you don't have a situation where nearly everyone agrees on what the title should be – even after a vigorous and comprehensive debate.

I want to make it quite clear that I don't personally care which title is chosen – I just want the debate to end. I firmly believe that the title has to be "Sega Genesis" – not because I think it's the best title (actually, I believe that "Mega Drive" or "Sega Mega Drive" would be fractionally better) – but because that's what a rock-solid Wikipedia "policy" document unambiguously says it has to be when you guys can't agree. Since you very clearly can't agree (and never will) – that's how it ends up being.

SteveBaker (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You really truly have no idea what you're talking about, not one of you.

I'm going to go ahead and make it very clear that you guys are the reason why this article is at its current name. No, not all those discussions from all those archives back, you. Now, since you keep saying you're the reasonable types and feel that you simply "have" to listen to policy... you are the ones that can change the situation. No, not anyone else, you!

When policy gets in the way of improving the encyclopedia, you change that policy. You don't hold on to it as a last bastion of some defense you don't even support, you change it to fit your needs. That is the whole damned point of the policies, and no amount of interpretation can change that.

So here is what you need to do: set this policy aside for a bit. Make a proper RM or whatever needs to be made for this. People like you need to chip in and make it clear why you've been saying half the things you have, because it's all meaningless otherwise.

This is not a case of more to less, but less to more. This entire situation has been brought about because of red tape and gaming the system; there is not a single argument out there that can show otherwise. Despatche (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Stevebaker, your aptitude for misinterpreting policies and even the meaning of basic words is impressive. Firstly: stable means unchanging. I'm not sure what dictionary you have been using, but all of the ones I have seen say 'unchanging', 'difficult to alter' or similar. The fact that something is debated and doesn't get changed doesn't diminish stability, it PROVES that it is stable.

Secondly, either you think 2.5 years is a longer time than 5 years, or you have a very poor memory to forget that the title was at Mega Drive for much longer than Genesis.

And finally, regarding the second tiebreaker, why have you ignored what the policy actually says? It doesn't, as you imply, say "the title of the article when it stopped being a stub", it says "the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub". I mean, you pasted it, did you nobody would read it? The first major contributor was the only major contributor at that time. He used both titles. That tiebreaker is useless in this case. I am seriously tired of Genesis proponents abusing policy to get their way. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 17:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Let me ask you all something: Why is it so fucking important as to whether the title of this article is Genesis or Mega Drive? Does it REALLY matter THAT much? Many of you are taking these arguments to such an extreme that we might as well have declared World War III over it. I'm serious. IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT MUCH! People are smart. They can apply common sense. Whichever title we have up there, we're still talking about the same goddamned CONSOLE, and we are capable of writing whatever needs to be written to make sure the console is dealt with correctly in whatever context. WE DO NOT NEED TO KEEP BEATING THIS DEAD HORSE – IT HAS TURNED INTO COAL BY NOW. (Yes, I'm beyond frustrated with this damned WikiLawyering bullshit, and I do NOT apologize for my bitterness.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

It matters because all sense of the basic purpose of Wikipedia has been lost. We genuinely have a situation where people are arguing that English isn't English if it was written by a Japanese bloke. We had a stable title for 5 years and now we have a title which makes no logical sense, chosen because one group of people thought a title should be changed to appease talk page complainers and another group after that decided that's a crazy idea, we should choose a different title just because! It sets a bad precedent when the way to get what you want on WP is to just keep complaining until you get an opening. Policy has been abused to the detriment of the content, that's why it's fucking important. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 20:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

If that's really what matters on Wikipedia, then it's really no wonder a significant portion of the world don't take it seriously. How can you expect an encyclopedia to serve its purpose if all anyone ever does on it is argue semantics and WikiLawyer policies? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Wait, if that's what really matters? Are you now calling into question the idea that the quality of the article is the most important factor? <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 20:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Flew right over your head again, did it? "All sense of the basic purpose of Wikipedia has been lost?" I called into question that particular phrase, applying it to this God-forsaken dispute in particular. It would seem that with such vociferous debate about an article's title, and all the stupid WikiLawyering that's been going on about it, we've lost all sense of purpose about actually improving the article. It would seem that in fact spending weeks and months arguing over which title is better is, in fact, more important than bringing the article up to "Featured Article" quality. In fact, it seems to matter so very much that, as I said elsewhere, we might as well have declared a war over it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You talk as if a name change to Mega Drive wouldn't improve the article. Have you seen the opening sentence? You talk as if quashing policy abuse wouldn't improve all articles. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 02:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

If there's a problem with the opening sentence, why don't you fix it? Or are you too busy accusing everyone else of abusing policy? You have just as much power to work toward a reasonable end of this stupid dispute as I do. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It's important because the article suffers as a result of the current title, "Genesis" only really refers to the console in its North American variant, "Mega Drive" refers to every other variant as well as the console in general (which is why even the Genesis-proponents aren't in favour of moving Variations of the Sega Mega Drive to Variations of the Sega Genesis. It should be common sense that "Mega Drive" is a better term to use when referring to the console in general, but because of the article's title and some editor's absolute reluctance to let "Mega Drive" gain any kind of prominence it's being used as an excuse to use "Genesis" even when it's wildly inappropriate. It's blatant this is happening right from the opening sentence of the article that begins by saying "The Sega Genesis is a home video game console released on October 29, 1988" when no such console by that name was released on that date. I actually had to fight to get the "as the Mega Drive" part added in so it at least made some semblance of sense, but the sentence is still all grammatically incorrect phrased the wrong way round like that. Then, when people do try to correct these sentences (of which there are many, throughout the article) like here [12], this [13] happens. The article title either needs to change to "Mega Drive" or a neutral title that favours neither variant, in order to cure this problem. --85.211.204.35 (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The Nintendo Entertainment System article doesn't seem to have this problem. Its opening paragraph deals with the fact that the console was released in Japan under the name "Family Computer, or Famicom for short". How come we're not also debating this issue to death over there? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I genuinely think you've lost sight of what we are talking about here. It is accepted fact that the vast majority of English speakers know it as the NES, you realise that right? <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 20:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Really? I was sure that a number of people had argued that "The one argument that matters" is the first name the console was released under.

But if the "majority of English speakers" is what we should be considering, than that pretty much means that "Genesis" in indisputably the correct answer.

APL (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding me right now, do you really think there are more English speakers in North America than the rest of the world? <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 02:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You're generalizing it too far, Karl. No, North America does not geographically comprise the largest group of English speakers in the world. But according to ALL of our sources, even though they don't agree exactly on global sales, the vast majority of this console's sales occurred in North America under the Genesis brand when you consider only English-speaking markets. That means that in those regions, far more people bought the console with the Genesis name, and thus assertions about the broader market's awareness of each brand follow logically. When you expand the sales figures to ALL of the console's markets, THAT is where the numbers have gone into conflict. But since you said "majority of English speakers", you have to account for only those markets and the sales within them, and to my knowledge, nobody has ever called those figures into question. If you have sources that show otherwise, let's see them. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry what? How have sales figures got anything to do with it? Do you think people who buy it comprise any more than a drop in the ocean compared to the number of people who are aware of it? I'm pretty sure there's no policy that says we should decide content based on sales figures, if that's changing somebody go warn the guys at Betamax because pretty soon they might not have an article! <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 03:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, if sales figures DON'T have anything to do with it, then GIVE US A BETTER SOURCE OF INFORMATION TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIM! Are you going to try to argue that we should be basing our information on potential Mega Drive customers in every English-speaking region of the world? What reliable source could possibly back up a claim like that? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, the majority of native English speakers, buying English-language products at English-language stores are absolutely in USA. We hugely outnumber UK and Australia which were the two other English-speaking regions where the console sold non-trivial amounts.

For some domains you could make a case for parts of India, but not video games, even today India's video game market is nearly non-existent. APL (talk) 03:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

That's an awful lot of qualifications you need to use there to get the policy to fit your needs. I'm pretty sure policy doesn't mention the word native, and I'm pretty sure it doesn't say anything about people buying the product being the only ones that count, and hey I'm pretty sure that it doesn't say "choose the people this policy applies to based on their nationality". <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 03:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You are still missing the point, Karl. You can't apply filters unequally and expect your argument to make any sense. Either you base your qualification of "Majority of the English-speaking world" on real data, or you're blowing hot air out of... well, some body part, anyway. We're trying to get you back in the realm of actual policy, not this WikiLawyering bullshit you seem to think this is. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you just proved my point there, Karl. The circumstances surrounding the NES/Famicom are, in many ways, identical to arguments that have been brought up here on both sides of this incessant debate. Yet people just accept them over there, ostensibly because the one major difference is that the NES was named as such in more places than just North America. But if you focus on just the narrow scope of arguments that have been brought up here, then tried to apply them to the NES article, there really wouldn't be much of a reason NOT to debate the same issue over there, would there? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

There are many factors which go into deciding the title, the overriding one at NES is that most English speakers know it by that name. Somehow that factor doesn't apply here. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 02:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes

Okay, get your story straight. Is it that the title that most English speakers know it as is the one we should be using, or is that NOT the case? Because nobody has disputed that, among English-speaking nations where the console was sold, the vast majority of them were sold in North America under the Genesis brand. (What HAS been disputed is whether or not the sales figures support the assertion that half or more of ALL consoles in ALL regions were sold in North America, and then there's the secondary dispute about whether that even matters.) If that is the criterion we should be applying, then APL is correct. If we should NOT be applying it, then why is it relevant in the NES article? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

This is the fundamental problem. People are not using logical arguments to determine the correct outcome. They're deciding ahead of time which outcome they want, and then deciding which arguments are valid based on whether or not they support their choice.

It's an easy game to play. When someone points out a contradiction in your arbitrarily chosen arguments, just make up an exception to the rule that sounds plausible and only applies in that one specific case. APL (talk) 03:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Er, I want to make clear that I mean this is happening subconsciously. I absolutely do not mean that people are jerking each-other around in bad faith.

It's the same effect you see in political debates on Twitter. APL (talk) 03:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I dunno, APL, at this point, there are so many accusations of bad faith going around that I don't think you have to be so kind. Karl here has been accusing the entire "Pro-Genesis" side of the debate of policy abuse for quite a while now. I don't think you can keep assuming good faith on that. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I really do believe that everyone involved honestly thinks that their chosen name has the strongest arguments in favor of it. In light of that, I can sympathize with the frustration. APL (talk) 09:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

As above, "the name it sold most as" and "the title that most English speakers know it as" are not the same thing. To suggest differently is disingenuous. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 03:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Which brings me back to my original point: If you're going to apply that sort of filter to the equation, you have to do it equally, and on real data. I doubt there is a single reliable source in the world that will be able to tell you how many people in which English-speaking countries are aware of and particularly care about the Mega Drive vs. the Genesis. The best data we have at the moment is comprised of marketing data (telling us where Sega attempted to sell either version of the console) and sales data (telling us how many units were sold in each market). You might be able to find some press coverage in non-sales countries of either brand, but I highly doubt, having done a fair amount of research into that very subject the LAST time this came around, that you'll find anything that would refute the assertion that the Genesis brand far outweighs the Mega Drive brand in both sales and press coverage in English-speaking countries. Now, I ask you again, what data do you have that shows otherwise? (Stop dodging the question.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Nice rant there from a Yank with a North American bias, the article had actually been named Mega Drive longer than it has been named Sega Genesis so by your fail logic, you fail94.172.127.37 (talk) 09:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks like someone needs to read WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Do you have a point to make, or are you just here to attack other users? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)