Wikipedia

Talk:Sega Genesis/Archive 3

< Talk:Sega Genesis
(Redirected from Talk:Mega Drive/Archive 3)
Latest comment: 18 years ago by Havok in topic Proposed move
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Teradrive vs. Mega PC

These two systems are totally different and shouldn't be under the same section, and it's "Teradrive", not "Terra Drive"!

The Teradrive was made by or in association with IBM in Japan, which was based on a 286 system. More info here: http://nfg.2y.net/games/teradrive/

The Mega PC was made entirely by Amstrad, under license from Sega. It bears NO RESEMBLANCE to the Teradrive at all, except for the fact it was an Intel-based PC with Mega Drive hardware in one. --Zilog Jones 15:59, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

hi

Merging Sega Genesis/Sega Mega Drive

Latest comment: 19 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion

To be honest, I think it's kind of ridiculous that there is still two articles which primarily duplicate content and I think they should be merged. I've added merge disputed to this page, are there still objections to this being merged though? Halo 09:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that a merger should take place, but under a page title such as 'Sega Megadrive/Genesis' or something else neutral like that. If one must be picked, which I would absolutely argue that it doesn't, then the fact that it was only named the Genesis on one half of one continent while it carried the name 'Megadrive' for 4 1/2 other continents should probably be acknowledged. It also maintained a much bigger proportional share of the 16bit market in Europe (under the Megadrive name) than it did in either the USA or Japan due to the great success of the Master System in that region and the comparative failure of the NES. ThomasHarte 22:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Generally one must be picked, as "Sega Megadrive/Genesis" looks clunky, and then an order argument would ensue anyway. WhisperToMe 23:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

For the most part I have no problem, except for the obvious fact that any change made is going to upset someone. And considering the amount of people that seem to care about what the article is called, this article title will almost certainly be changed again no matter what you do. Merge it, it'll be seperated. Rename either, and there'll be another long discussion about why the name is wrong. It might as well just be left as is, though perhaps removing more detail from either article so that it is not duplicated and so that linking between the two is necessary. Of course, then you have to decide which one to trim down and the problem isn't really solved... -- Supermorff 13:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Then we should logically use the Mega Drive article for all general information since it was the name used in the majority of countries. The "Manual of Style" states that "[f]or the English Wikipedia, there is no preference among the major national varieties of English" - so the various arguments that 'English wikipedia is primarily for Americans' are based on an incorrect understanding of the wikipedia style guides. I therefore continue to vote for Mega Drive due to worldwide use of that name versus a one territory use of another.
I suggest the way to move forwards, as consensus appears not to be possible is to conduct a survey (as per Wikipedia:Survey guidelines) and use the basis of that to integrate whatever parts of the two articles into whatever place as the survey results suggest. If the result of the survey continues to be disputed (e.g. further edits to return to the current state) then continue down the paths indicated by Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
Surveys should be proposed then discussed for at least a week beforehand, so to kick us off I suggest the following form for the survey:

Vote for where you think all information related to both the Mega Drive and Genesis should be deposited - the Sega Mega Drive page or the Sega Genesis page.

Arguments in favour of Sega Mega Drive:

  • The Wikipedia:Manual of Style states that "there is no preference among the major national varieties of English", so the correct depository should not be picked according merely to specific locations in which either name was used
  • The name Sega Mega Drive was used internationally, the name Genesis only in North America
  • A google search for "megadrive" returns 1,440,000 hits. A search for "Sega Genesis" returns only 1,190,000, implying that the Megadrive name is more popular. A search for merely "Genesis" finds the Phil Collins rock band and the biblical book with no mention of Sega until the fifth page. The megadrive search returns Sega related results until at least the twentieth page.

Arguments in favour of Sega Genesis:

  • A fairer google search compares Sega Megadrive with 864,000 to Sega Genesis with 1,190,000 - Megadrive has another meaning in the US
anyway, that's literally all I've been able to find in favour of Genesis from this talk page, although M123 seems to have come up with alternate results that google.com doesn't verify for me. Hopefully someone else can fill in more Genesis reasons or else it isn't going to be much of a survey! ThomasHarte 17:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I cannot argue with anything you've said. I will therefore merely point out that the Megadrive console can be spelled either as "Mega Drive" or "Megadrive", and that the google statistics should reflect this. I suggest keeping both pages, with the Megadrive page the only one to contain the technical information (as suggested previously on one of these pages). Also, only one of them needs a 'screenshots' section. It doesn't add a lot, in my opinion. Proceed with the survey if you wish. -- Supermorff 13:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

While technically yes, you can argue that the Mega Drive is technically the more used name worldwide, it doesn't strike me as the more commonly used name. I know, statistics prove otherwise (and I did my own little research on that matter; "Mega Drive" beats out "Sega Genesis" by a decent margin, though "Sega Genesis" beats out "Sega Mega Drive" almost 3:1), but even still, it feels wrong. I can't really explain it, either. I guess it's just cultural differences or something. Almost like merging "Starburst (confectionery)" into "Opal Fruits", barring the fact that "Opal Fruits" was renamed "Starburst" a few years back. It just... doesn't seem right to me. And I can almost guarantee there'll be others who think the exact same thing, only with merging "Mega Drive" into "Genesis". I find it hard to conceive of a solution that'll actually appease everybody, other than moving the article to Sega Mega Drive / Genesis, but that's just clunky. --Shadow Hog 04:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Of course, Genesis presumably feels just as wrong to people like me in a Mega Drive territory as Mega Drive does to you, but is there anything offensive in removing from the Genesis article everything pertinent to both machines but leaving all of the American specifics in place - as suggested by various others above? So, specifically, strip "Development" to something tiny about how the decision to bring the successfully developed Mega Drive to America ran into name problems, keep all of "Release", cut down text of non-American specifc Mega Drive variants machines in "Versions", entirely remove technical specifications, remove whatever nuggets of trivia aren't generic (which will be mostly those that explicitly or implicitly reference the Majesco machine). So the main body of text, i.e. that in "Release" would be completely unaffected.
Looking at the question as I had it formulated, I don't think its worth having a survey. They're meant to help reach consensus in decision making (as wikipedia isn't a democracy) but such a one sided question is unlikely to achieve that. ThomasHarte 18:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Looks like someone has already moved the article wholesale to Genesis/Mega Drive, so I guess that ends that debate! ThomasHarte 18:22, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
No it doesn't. The move was made unilaterally by an anon without any actual discussion on the subject, and quite honestly, the result is pathetic, and opens the dangerous precedent of renaming all articles where goods with different names exist on both UK and US to this combination. The console was originally named "Mega Drive" and then renamed due to trademark issues, and except for google hits I don't see any reason why the "Genesis" branding should be given such an importance. US-centrism at it's best. wS;✉ 23:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree with wolfenSilva, the page was moved without any formal concensus so this matter is not closed. If we are to use a dual title, then we should use chronological order to determine which which name goes first. "Mega Drive" is the original name, and therefore it should be first. However I think using dual titles is silly idea. I suggest each article article should be titled to the original name when launched, then use a redirect to that page for all other names. Articles should follow some kind of chronological order for the sake of documenting its history. ADSR6581 08:47, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia being a resource where all decisions are made by consensus, the fact that there is disagreement means that the retitle was a bad move, regardless of whether or not I agree with it and I accept that point. But in my view the "Genesis" brand should be given some significance because the Majesco Genesis 3 is, as far as I can tell from the material currently present, a unique instance of Sega licensing the hardware to a third party and it being radically redesigned, and I can't see why most of the American specific information can't remain in a Genesis article (e.g. the Sega Channel, the 65%/35% market share remarks), even if the introductory paragraph is along the lines of "The Sega Genesis is the North American version of the Sega Megadrive, renamed because Sega where unable to use the machine's original name from its earlier Japanese launch" or something else like that sufficient to indicate that the Genesis name was a fallback used only in one territory and the console already existed under a different name.
So the question is - what to do now? ThomasHarte 15:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't see the significence of the Majesco Genesis 3. Unless we are suddenly going to also acknowledge the (equally limited) significence of the officially licenced Tectoy Mega Drive 3, released in Brazil which was also developed by a 3rd party. Sure, there are several reasons why the Genesis name could be given significence, but Majesco's piece of crap certainly isn't one of them.
I think the Sega Mega Drive/Genesis could be successfully merged into one article, which IMO should be Sega Mega Drive, with info on the origin on the Genesis name. Mega Drive because it's the original name, used in the most markets, and was only changed due to it already being trademarked. Then again, I am biased. I just hope it doesn't descend into a move war. Halo 12:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't put into question the relevance of the Genesis; like with any other console article, it would have its own section (In North America as Genesis, for instance) where all the related information can go. What I'm questioning is the relevance of the brand outside north america (which is none) in order to have so much hassle about having an article alone about it or warranting place in the article name. wS;✉ 13:19, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
The Makesco Genesis 3 is just the first example of something "Genesis specific" I could think of. I don't think it has great relevance on its own, although as an encyclopedic resource it should obviously go in especially as it seems to have some unique hardware quirks that indicate an electronically redesigned system rather than a mere licensing of the existing design. Not that I believe you were suggesting otherwise. It might be nice to get some more information on the Tec Toy variations too.
If everyone is in agreement then I guess editing the current article named Sega Genesis / Sega Mega Drive so that a lot of the Genesis specific information is moved underneath a common heading rather to Sega Megadrive. And presumably this also means renaming Gallery of Sega Genesis screenshots, Sega Genesis Game List, Category:Sega Genesis games and probably lots of others I haven't found. Although in the case of the screenshots it'd technically be incorrect since anything with English text should be squashed and given black borders to represent a true English language Megadrive output. But then again I note that the existing page references such images as File:MD Street Fighter II.png.
If all resistence is gone, I guess the move should be done immediately. ThomasHarte 16:26, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Colors

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Genesis can only display 61 colors without tricks. There are 4 16 color palletes; however, color 0 is used as the transparent color for background planes and sprites so the color 0 entry can only be used for the background color. Since you can only have one background color without using raster effects, we get 4*15+1=61 colors. With tricks the color limit is only 1536 colors not 3072 (unless there's some trick I'm not aware of). Raster effects allow all 512 colors in the pallete onscreen (though only 61 per line) at a time. Shadow/Highlight adds a shadow and highlight version of each color effectively tripling the available pallete (though it imposes some other limitations). When both these effects are combined we get 512*3=1536. No games actually use this many colors, though there have been one or two tech demos that use the technique. I am changing the colors spec back to the older numbers.

Mask of Destiny 01:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move

Latest comment: 18 years ago42 comments22 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed move. Please do not modify it.

Consensus was move. RadioKirk, since you did the move, could you sign it instead of me. Havok (T/C/c) 15:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal  : Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis -> Sega Mega Drive
Rationale :   Wikipedia's naming policy explicitly states: Do not use an article name that suggests a hierarchy of articles.
The rename for the US is a part of the Mega Drive's history: the rebranding happened to the Mega Drive not to the Sega Genesis.
Proposer : DavidHOzAu

Survey and discussion

Please add  * Support  or  * Oppose  followed by a brief explanation, then sign your vote using "~~~~".

  • Oppose. We have been over this and over this, and it's held that "Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis" is the best way to maintain a global perspective for this article. If you call it one or the other, you shut out the Americans, or you shut out everyone else. And you also risk the chance of someone creating an article on the other title. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    Comment Was the console ever marketed as "Sega-Mega-Drive-slash-Sega-Genesis™"? I actually don't care what name the article takes, just as long as it is out of the subpage. The current title is totally non-standard, no matter how "global" it is. --DavidHOzAu 06:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Suggestion You could make the main article Sega Mega Drive and have Sega Genesis redirect to that. This is allready done with Bio Hazard 5 to Resident Evil 5. I am with the nominator about the use of / in the name, but then again it has been voted on before. Havok (T/C/c) 10:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment Yes, and there is another interesting read at Talk:Sega CD#Discussion. (For the record, the vote there was no consensus). --DavidHOzAu 13:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - The rebranding is discussed in the lead section, a redirect from Sega Genesis is good enough. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 11:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't think the slash suggests a hierarchy; I've seen Genesis vs. Mega Drive edits, so I'm more than happy with the status quo. I haven't found any reliable source but once I came across one which stated 15 million units were sold in North America and 15 million in the rest of the world. With that information I was everytime for a consensus which is ok for all. I don't think Sega Mega Drive will fulfil this wish. --32X 12:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    Comment At the top of the page there is a link to the parent talk page. As far as wikipedia is concerned, there is a hierarchy of talk pages. As for using names, just mention something like: "in that territory. (for the purpose of this article, these terms are used interchangably.)" --DavidHOzAu 06:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose for the reason stated by SchuminWeb. TJ Spyke 19:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose because not only will it confuse people (why does this discussion sound familiar?), but it also shows cultural bias. I understand the point about the policy, but given that the current title makes Wikipedia easier to understand, I think this is a case of Wikipedia: Ignore All Rules. -Unknownwarrior33 19:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    Comment As it stands, the article will never be a feature article; I think that's something to aim for. Note that for feature articles (point 3b), style guidelines are to be read as if they were policy. I'm trying to pre-empt the article failing to meet the style guidlines during the approval process. --DavidHOzAu 06:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    Comment I think that feature article point 3b is pretty clearly referring to section headers within the article, not to the name of the article itself. But feature article reviewers tend to be extremely critical of all style violations (not just those called out in the feature article guidelines), so this doesn't necessarily negate your point. Kickaha Ota 06:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    Comment Thank you for understanding why I nominated this article to be moved. I really don't care if it goes to Sega Genesis or Sega Mega Drive; I just felt that the Mega Drive was more reasonable after the discussion at Sega CD, and that a move like this would have a higher chance of success if I pointed out how silly the current title really is. Even though the rivalry is now largely dead, it would be nice if this article was a FA along with Nintendo Entertainment System. --DavidHOzAu 07:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is not a policy violation; The slash in this case does not imply a heirarchy, nor is meant to. Nifboy 23:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    Comment As stated before, the link at the top of this talk page to the parent article's talk page would say otherwise. --DavidHOzAu 04:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Same reason as Anetode - out of the three main territories for consoles (Japan, EU, US) the majority did use Mega Drive as the name, with the third merely being rebranded due to copyright issues, a redirect wouldn't lead to any confusion as this is mentioned in the opening paragraph. Jastein 05:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Like it or not, the slash in an article name has a basic, technical meaning to the MediaWiki software. It causes the software to interpret the article as occupying part of a hierarchy, and that causes display glitches that can confuse users. For articles that discuss things with slashes in their names (like CP/M), this is generally tolerated. But when the slash is not part of the name of the item being discussed, then the article should be, and nearly always is, renamed to something without a slash. So unless the system is actually named the "Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis" somewhere in the world, then it should be renamed. Kickaha Ota 06:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - On the other Wikipedia languages, the article is located at "Sega Mega Drive", so it should be moved there to match the other Wikipedias. --Kuroki Mio 2006 21:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I prefer using chronological order for article names. A redirect to "Sega Mega Drive" is the best and simplest option IMO. —Pixel8 16:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - There are two reasons to support changing the title of this article. If you want to change it to the more recognizable one, Google shows that "SEGA Genesis" would be the correct choice. If you want to change it to the "original" name, then we'll also need to change Nintendo Entertainment System and Super Nintendo Entertainment System. It seems to me that leaving it the way it is would be the proper decision. 71.244.180.131 23:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Keeping a "slashed" name because of a dispute over which of two names is proper is not a good solution. If you absolutely cannot agree on whether Sega Mega Drive or Sega Genesis is a better name for the article, then take the airplane-versus-aeroplane solution... rename the article to "Sega 16-bit console", and redirect both "Sega Genesis" and "Sega Mega Drive" to the neutral name. Kickaha Ota 02:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: That solution sounds charming at first, but I guess within less than one week someone would come and move (rename) the article again. On a second view, we're actually doing, what you suggest: Sega Mega Drive and Sega Genesis redirect to one neutral name. Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis is neutral, since neither the international nor the North American name is handled second best - they are equal in one article name. --32X 10:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. "Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis" is neutral, but technically and stylistically wrong. "Sega Mega Drive" or "Sega Genesis" would be technically and stylistically right, but at least arguably non-neutral. "Sega 16-bit console" would be neutral and technically/stylistically right, but bland and unsatisfying. My point wasn't to advocate for "Sega 16-bit console"; I'd much rather see the community pick a meaningful, technically-and-stylistically-correct name. (If you asked me what I'd do at this point if I were the Wiktator and had to decide the issue, I'd rename the article to "Sega Mega Drive" since that seems to be at least the weak consensus for a preferred alternate name, then add a {{Wrongtitle}}-style disclaimer to the top of the article: "The preferred title of this article is 'Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis'. The current title is used due to technical restrictions." Kickaha Ota 21:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support The best name for the article would be Megadrive or Mega Drive, because they are the only straightforward names (Genesis is already linked to the Bible), and is one of the two options the casual user would type in the search box (it is very unlikely they will type "Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis"). Not choosing Megadrive or Mega Drive, this is a fair solution. -- ReyBrujo 03:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support After reading the comments, it seems most reasons for not keeping the name is that you can't decide on which name to be the main article and which name should be a redirect. Does that really matter? It is stated in the first paragraph of the article which is which and why it has two names. If that is a huge problem for everone, go with Kickaha Ota's suggestion. And the / should not be used if it is not part of the name of the article in question. Havok (T/C/c) 10:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - This is certainly a tough one, but I believe the rename would be the most appropriate action, since the current name is way too clunky. Kickaha Ota's idea seems to have merit, too, though. --ADeveria 11:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Wikipedia has a serious policy omission when it comes to product names. Products should be named as per the name they were first sold as, especially the name they were given in their country of origin, with redirects from other popular re-names. For example, I think that Resident Evil should be the redirect, Biohazard the article. - X201 11:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support/Comment - This is fucking retarded. Way to go group think, instead of just picking a name and sticking with it, we've gone for a stupid compromise situation which neither party fully appreciates. Great. Good going. I'd prefer Sega Mega Drive because it's known in more markets as that, but Sega Genesis would be a second choice. Not the amalgam of both names. - Hahnchen 14:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - The name as it stands is unacceptable. Move it to whichever name is more common, and have the other redirect to that. --PresN 14:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support for the countless reasons mentioned all over the place. Its not the done thing to have the / for the two names and it would be just American bias (something that is a big problem on wikipedia) to use genesis. Mega drive is the original name, the one used in the majority of the world, etc...
  • Comment: I can see the point about the 'neutral' name and the aeroplane comparisons but it doesn't really apply here. With planes it was a word exclusive to the English language, either could be said to be right. With the Mega Drive its a brand name which is used even outside of the English speaking world.--Josquius 17:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please note that I only supported the neutral-name idea if the editors absolutely could not agree to use one name or the other, which I hope doesn't happen. I'd much rather see one system name or the other get used, even if means adding a {{wrongtitle}}-style notice to the top of the article (as I suggested in a comment I just added). Kickaha Ota 21:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Well, logically the name should be Sega Mega Drive, seeing as Sega named the system as that, and it was born as that. As stated above, Genesis was only used in the US because of copyright problems. Shall we be bold and start the move? Havok (T/C/c) 08:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Since this article has a history and Sega Mega Drive has its own history you just cannot move it by yourself. If you're bold and move only content, someone will move it back within a day. Happened to Sega CD some weeks ago. --32X 12:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I will then ask an admin to make a merger. As it stands now, there is consensus of a move, and the arguments for not moving do not outweigh the fact that the current name is against policy aswell. Havok (T/C/c) 12:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support The page name, as it currently is, is ridiculous. Mega Drive is the appropriate name, since it was both the original name for the system and it was used in more territories across the world. In similar examples noted above, such as Resident Evil and NES, those names were used more widely across the world, so their page names are justified by the same rationale. --SevereTireDamage 21:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support Regardless of what it gets changed to, the slashed name simply can't stay. --InShaneee 22:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose As has been said before, if this article must be renamed, it should be renamed to the more popular and more well known name - which Google shows to be the 'Sega Genesis'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheUncleBob (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment Well, if you read above, Wikipedia states that the article should use the "original" name, and the name it was coined as to begin with, which is Sega Mega Drive. The console originates from Japan, and in Japan it was called Mega Drive, not Genesis. Havok (T/C/c) 05:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I have not researched either of those, but if it's a similar situation in which a product had one name globally and a different name in the US only (or close to only), then the global name should take precedence, IMHO. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Having a policy where the original name of something is the article and redirects come from alternative names for that item seems like absolute common sense to me. X201 13:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sega_Genesis/Archive_3&oldid=1137179146"