Wikipedia

Talk:Sega Genesis/Archive 14

< Talk:Sega Genesis
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Born2cycle in topic Requested move (October 2011)
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 20

Archiving

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Just a note to say that the auto archiving of this page is working correctly, and all of the move discussion threads will get archived at the end of October. - X201 (talk) 10:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the original move discussion will archive at the end of October. The new debate will archive 30 days after the last comment. - X201 (talk) 13:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move (October 2011)

Latest comment: 13 years ago222 comments24 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Closing as nom as consensus clearly does not support this particular proposal, but straw poll below suggests another - so will be starting new proposal accordingly. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Born2cycle (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


Sega Genesis and Mega Drive → Genesis (Sega Mega Drive) – I understand that there has been a "bloody" history regarding the title of this article, but the current title is untenable. It goes against consensus of how we should title our articles, is confusing, and sets a bad precedent. Further, the last discussion was closed prematurely (it was still active, there were explicit requests to keep it open, and there were not very many outside opinions yet).

I don't know if Genesis (Sega Mega Drive) has been considered, but I'm proposing it now, for several reasons. First, while "Genesis" and "Mega Drive" are both obviously common names for the game, only Genesis conveniently requires disambiguation. I say conveniently because we can disambiguate with "Sega Mega Drive". The other way does not work, since Sega Mega Drive and Mega Drive do not require disambiguation, and, so Mega Drive (Sega Genesis) would be unnecessarily disambiguated, which is contrary to consensus regarding how we title articles.

Second, this is a way to get both names in the title while remaining in compliance with consensus on how to title articles. So, it seems to me this title should address all objections and meet all requirements. Born2cycle (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Disambigs do not work that way. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: given that the past few months has been move discussion after move discussion, we should strive for a period of stability. The current title was reached after a long period of mediation and consensus. The consensus is currently that both names are of equal importance and should be given equal importance in the title: the current Genesis-first title is a result of alphabetical order. By relegating Mega Drive to the disambiguator, it goes against consensus on this talk page and consensus for disambiguation pages: "Genesis (games console)" is a better title than "Genesis (Sega Mega Drive)". And there is nothing in WP:AND that forbids the current practice; indeed, it can be read to support it. Sceptre (talk) 01:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose: This article was just recently moved and gained some semblance of stability and consensus from both sides.∞陣内Jinnai 02:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Sceptre and the still apparent consensus above. I consider this request disruptive given the history of the article. Furthermore, I think the request should be speedy closed seeing as the paint isn't dry on the new name.LedRush (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Fully agree with the above reasons. The current article title is the result of a long and very thorough discussion that resulted in consensus from both sides. - X201 (talk) 10:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support any proposal better than the current travesty of a title. Reasonable objections to the previous proposal were not addressed. Powers T 15:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support changing the title to either Sega Genesis or Mega Drive (no opinion as to which) Oppose the proposal to call it Genesis (Sega Mega Drive) because the words in parenthesis should be there to aid disambiguation - which is not what this is. SteveBaker (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment, Isn't this just swapping one compound name for another? I mean, I get that it's clever because just "Genesis" would require disambig, so you're using the disambig to placate the Mega-Drive fans, but it's kinda forced. A straightforward disambig would be more like "Genesis (Game Console)". Wikipedia really needs some sort of procedure to settle entirely arbitrary choices with a fair coin flip. APL (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, like the current title it's a compromise to appease both sides. But unlike the current title, the proposed title is not a blatant violation of policy and guidelines. I like your suggestion (and several others) better, but I don't think they have a chance of achieving consensus support there. I'm hoping some of the opposes above are still reading and have a change of heart. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
      • It isn't a blatant violation as they are written. Multiple people read this and came to the same conclusion. We even went so far as to have some mock tests to see what kind of issues people may bring up. That you disagree does not make you right. You should not have made a disruptive proposals like this. The RfC should have been done if you truly thought that way.∞陣内Jinnai 21:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
        • Huh? This is an RFC. The issue has also been raised at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Article_titles_using_two_names_to_refer_to_a_single_subject, which is how I found out about it, where consensus was that the title is "untenable", and why I started this RM/RFC discussion here. --Born2cycle (talk)
          • That is not an RfC. If it was at one time, it was not well published as it did not include the people who discussed things here (other than the one vocal opponent who initially created that section). If so, it was an improper RfC. There is an RfC notice above (i didn't notice that initially and why I revised my statement), but that was made after the move request.

            What you had on the other page was a bunch of editors who disagreed with what we did, likely people who watch that page. That does not represent a broad consensus. The discussion here brought in people from a larger group than that discussion had likely due to its unusual name change.∞陣内Jinnai 22:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

            • Yes, I forgot to tag it as an RFC, but I did as soon as I remembered. In any case, it is an RFC now. And yes, the discussion at WT:AT does not represent a broad consensus, but policy and guidelines do, and the consensus at WT:AT was that the current title is not in compliance with policy and/or guidelines. In any case, this is the proper place to discuss this further, so let's do that, instead of discussing the discussion. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
              • I would have to disagree with the broad consensus at AT and also that policy isn't top-down. As mentioned below by Woolftengu, this title does neutral and has consensus. It also has a good consensus that both sides could agree to that, from reading things at AT. The previous disucssion not only brought fans of the console (from both regions), but those disinterested in the Genesis and even video games. That is a broad consensus and none of it violates AT as written. Those at AT do not represent as broad of a group because they may have their own thoughts having been more close to the development of AT than those here. They represent a segement of WP, not the broad group. Finally, policy is not top-down at WP, its driven down-top. There is a clear indication that the current previous versions were causing issues and here we had a group come to an agreement on both sides that appeared to them not to have any issues under heavy scrutiny. That doesn't make them wrong because those who hang out at AT say it is.∞陣内Jinnai 23:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
                • In the previous discussion (above) 10 supported: KieferSkunk, X201, Jinnai, LedRush, DreamFocus, SexyKick, Wolftengu, Sceptre, YifferFox, and and BeastSystem.. None mentioned policy or guidelines. These are mostly classic comments of the WP:JDLI variety. There was also 5 in opposition: Powers, Cliff, Kusonose, Quietbritishjim and Miremare, most of which opposed on the grounds of policy and guidelines. The discussion was active when it was closed, and the only name of all those involved I recognize as someone I know is particularly familiar with naming policy and guidelines is Powers. This seems very unresolved to me, but let's allow this discussion to proceed. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
                  • Look at the one before that.∞陣内Jinnai 02:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
                    • I see your comment creatively suggesting the dual title based on believing that "Sega Genesis" and "Mega Drive" are "two closely related subjects where no clear common name can be found" as opposed to "two names for the same subject". I see the proposal and discussion based on that, which doesn't include anyone, as far as I can tell, out of the 10 that supported the current title in the previous RM proposal. In other words, no one with an outside perspective. There were a few comments for people like that in the previous RFC, but they all supported one name or the other, not this dual-name title. Keeping the current title is untenable. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose As explained by Sceptre. It includes both titles, it's regionally neutral, it works. Wolftengu (talk) 21:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
    • The decision that a small number of participants (10 out of 15) reached is without precedent or merit. Besides those 10 people, nobody else agrees with it. The consensus of a small group does not trump the consensus of the entire community, which is clearly opposed to "compound titles" (for lack of a better term - since these don't exist they don't even have a name). The previous discussion was closed prematurely and incorrectly. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
      • If I remember correctly, there was a timeframe set for the discussion period, and even with KeiferSkunk's false start we went through that period to the end. Those that opposed the move either gave no real tangible opinion on it outside of it being "misleading" (i.e. LtPowers), or that it somehow an example of non-neutrality or against WP article title conventions (i.e. Miremare). Except the single names alone (either "Genesis" or "Mega Drive") are definitely not "neutral". This definitely isn't a case of those "dastardly America-centric Americans" injecting their non-NPoV into Wikipedia, in fact I as an American see the value in having both names together as equals in the title. The whole thing was discussed before, and there were debates and responses to opposition. How many more times do we have to rename the article, until all useful article work ceases? Personally I think there's more constructive things we can be doing right now. Wolftengu (talk) 23:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
        • 10 out of 15 people agreeing on a title that is contrary to all applicable precedent, policy and guidelines does not trump community consensus. The current title should never have even been considered as an option at all, it's so far out of line. The only possible reasonable justification here is WP:IAR, but "we couldn't agree on any of the other perfectly compliant titles" hardly constitutes a good reason to "ignore all rules" and go with a non-compliant title. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
          • It could be argued that, over the course of it's life, there might've been more Genesis' sold than Mega Drives overall (even being the same machine with different names). But I don't think it necessarily qualifies "Genesis" alone as the name. Especially since that wasn't it's original name, but that doesn't alternatively make "Mega Drive" the only choice either. So both names need equal weight in this situation. So I think for that reason, whether or not the WP article guidelines specifically allow it or not, we need to make this a specific case for Wikipedia titles like this. It doesn't discriminate from either the machine's largest market or the more globally distributed version of it's marque (and Genesis is only first alphabetically, in this case). Finally, this name drama has been going on since the article were started in the first place, back in 2005. Simply dismissing this process ignores the past 7 years of debates, the separated articles, the merges, the splits, the moves, the fighting. This really is the happy medium. We really need to end this once and for all. Wolftengu (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
            • The fact that this topic is primary for more than one potential title hardly makes it a unique or even a special case. There are countless topics that are primary for more than one potential title, and for many of those it's not obvious which is the most commonly used title (good arguments could be made for each, just as has been done for each of the potential titles here). Just to name an entire category of such topics... plants (almost every plant arguably has a common name and scientific/Latin name). For none of those do we combine both titles into one like was done here. In every other such case editors work hard to resolve it one way or another, pick one, and the other is made a redirect to it.

              Thus, we have Joshua tree redirecting to the article at Yucca brevifolia; we don't have that article at Yucca brevifolia and Joshua tree which is where it would be per the reasoning of the 10-of-15 "consensus" here.

              This current title exemplifies what happens when editors focus on resolving a naming issue without giving due regard to the big picture. But at least the proposed title can be argued to be in compliance with conventions and policies, though that too is a bit of a stretch due to the unusual nature of the disambiguator. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

              • Joshua Tree is also a special case, due to the disambiguation needed (even though that is a really awkward setup). This is one machine with two equally-viable names, it's not disambiguating between two completely different thing with the same name. Okay, so Wikipedia's set-in-stone naming commandments demand we need to give one name and only one name? At this point we might as well tap Wikipedia's servers' /dev/urandom to randomly choose Sega Genesis or Sega Mega Drive whenever someone views the page. I reject your strawman and substitute my own. :D Wolftengu (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
                • Joshua Tree is not a special case, it's typical of most plants. But if you're bothered by the other uses for Joshua Tree (irrelevant since the plant is considered primary), consider the two names for the topic known as both California Black Oak and Quercus kelloggii. Which is the article? Which redirects? Who cares? The point is the article is not at Quercus kelloggii and California Black Oak.

                  There are no set-in-stone naming commandments, exceptions are acceptable, for good reason. What's missing here is a good reason that distinguishes this case from the countless others like it.

                  I agree that using /dev/urandom to select one of the two common names would be better than the current title. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

                  • So the 7 years of fighting over name moves isn't enough of a good reason? Please. We've been trying to find common ground for a long time now. The single names are definitely out of the question. And making one name a subset of the other doesn't really work either, since like I said before, both have equal weight on the machine. No offense, but I think perhaps you need to read into the guidelines less and look more at article and talk page histories, to understand exactly what's been going on here, why it's been such a sensitive situation, and why "just pick a name and stick with it" isn't going to work. Wolftengu (talk) 12:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
                    • With all due respect to the enormous effort that's gone into trying to pick a name, the problem is precisely that. We have a small group of editors who have deeply entrenched positions, reinforced through countless battles. The compromise title has brought in outside editors (such as myself) who do not have that history and are not deeply committed to a particular position. Seen from this outside perspective, we have a group of editors who are arguing about How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? - truly, it is the case that we just need to flip a coin and pick a title from the two most obvious ones which are clearly equally good because if they were not, we'd have had a good name choice about 6.9 years ago! It truly doesn't matter that much which one we go with. What isn't going to work is some kind of messy compromise that makes a dozen battle-weary editors halfway-happy in direct contravention of the larger communities naming conventions. What we desperately need is a commitment to binding third party arbitration - commitment from the majority of existing editors. Let some external group to choose between Sega Genesis and Sega Mega Drive - and agree in advance to stick to that decision come what may. We need the editors involved to be sufficiently adult about it to commit to supporting the results of that arbitration even if the name they prefer isn't chosen - such that whenever the question of renaming the article comes up again, all of the long-term-resident editors speak with one voice to say "that battle is over - we aren't going to re-fight it". You stick that in a banner at the top of the talk page and in a hidden comment at the top of the article page. If someone continues to fight after you've clearly explained that, then you report them to the admins for disruptive behavior. This approach has worked hundreds of times before in other articles. We've had just such bloody battles resolved in this manner in numerous articles about cars (for example) - it can be done and made to stick. SteveBaker (talk) 14:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support—Either Sega Genesis or Mega Drive would be preferable. I don't care which. Maybe Sega Genesis since it was first? (sort of a la ENGVAR?) This proposal, Genesis (Sega Mega Drive) is a distant third. All 3 are way better than the absurd title we have now, Sega Genesis and Mega Drive. I don't know of any other case where we have a title of "X and Y" where X and Y are the same thing. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Opppose - It hasn't even been a month.

    That's not the reason, though. The compromise title that we currently have may be unprecedented, but I see nothing else wrong with it. There was an unending dispute, and this has a chance of putting that to bed. Having some sane title that people can just stop worrying about is so much higher a priority than any other consideration on the table here, that I don't know why we're entertaining another move request. The point is that it really doesn't matter much, so stop worrying about it, please. How can we end this?!?

    Does the current title not fit with existing standards? Oh, no! The old title was a subject of constant fighting. Ending the fight is more important than anything else here. Therefore, let's let it end, rather than reviving it before the body is even cold. Please. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. The fighting will never end if a single name is chosen, it will suffer constant move proposals to "the other" name - as it has done throughout its history. The new name puts an end to that. It allows the apparently insignificant bunch of editors who voted for the name, to actually get on with editing the article. - X201 (talk) 07:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
As I said in the proposal, and others have explained, the objection is not just because it contradicts existing standards, though that alone is a good reason. If the reasons for the standards are understood, and the argument for going against them is explained in terms of how the reasons for those standards don't apply in this special case, that's one thing. But there is no special case here. The only reason given to go against those standards is the inability of a dozen or editors to agree on one of the two obvious names for this article. I have an idea, how about letting someone other than those dozen decide? Anyone ever involved with this article prior to this proposal should abstain, and I bet we could reach a decision quickly.

Anyway, the other reasons are that the current title is confusing and sets a bad precedent. If this title is acceptable, why not Quercus kelloggii and California Black Oak, Volkswagen Golf, Rabbit and Caribe, Football and soccer, Airplane and aeroplane, Yogurt and Yoghurt, New York City and The Big Apple, Truck and Lorry, ...? Do I need to go on? The idea of using X and Y as the title for an article about a subject commonly known as both X and Y does not improve the encyclopedia by one iota for anyone. It doesn't even serve editors, except for this dozen or so. Choosing to do so only because a small band of unreasonable editors can't agree on either clear and natural name is blatantly contrary to the best interests of this project, and the rest of the community should not be tolerant of such absurdity. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you're the one who's being unreasonable, and not only blatantly ignoring 7 years of debates over the naming of the article but throwing it back into the fire once we had settled on some sort of common ground. I understand that you may be obsessed with the enforcement of absolutely perfect title conventions across all of Wikipedia, but I suggest you take a second look at the results you may be leaving, perhaps it's more destructive than constructive. Having real concerns over certain aspects of the article is one thing, but leaving obtuse arguments and strawmen everywhere because those aspects simply grind with you doesn't help us improve much of anything. Personally this whole thing is a huge waste of time. Wolftengu (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
(after ec - totally agree with Wolftengu - well said) The reason for the existing standards is so that we can just settle on titles and stop worrying about them. They failed in this case, and if this alternative allows us to settle on a title and stop worrying about it, then it is entirely consistent with standards. Those examples you bring up are not apropos, because they don't share the context of this one. There has not been a big fight at Truck over whether we should call it Truck or Lorry that resulted in constant disruptive arguing over many months. If there were, we might go for some kind of strange compromise to make the fight stop. What we really need to do is convince people that fighting over article titles is almost never worth it.

Now, the current title does not hurt the encyclopedia one iota, and there is no reason we need to change it. If a small band of unreasonable editors are going to pitch a fit, and refuse to budge until we pick one of the titles that they want.... then they're holding the stability of this article hostage to their preferences, and they should be stopped. Born2cycle, stop, please. You're not helping the project by doing this. The band of editors who are upset with the current title is smaller than the band who couldn't agree in all the previous discussions, so don't start with this "small band of unreasonable editors". "Reasonable" editors don't spend so much time reviving titling disputes that should be allowed to die. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

"Does the current title not fit with existing standards? Oh, no!"—GTB, I realize existing standards are out the window, and we're in IAR territory here; fine. I think this title is really problematic, though. It's even misleading, since it implies that they are two different things. We have to deal with this exact problem all the time: see Talk:Kia_Carnival, there is a discussion right now about the same problem. Nobody there is suggesting Kia Carnival and Sedona, because that would be an awful idea. Maybe we can just do what the car articles do? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad you're addressing the title itself, and not some guideline. So, why don't we do what the car articles do? Well, I think we tried that, and it led to unending fighting. If you know another way out of those woods, and how to get people to agree to it, then I am your student. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Once upon a time, a group of people on a far distant desert island decided that they should build roads and drive cartloads of fish and coconuts back and forth between the sun-drenched beach and the stereotypical lone palm tree at the center of the island. Almost immediately, they discovered that it was necessary to agree upon which side of the road they would drive because without such agreement there would be chaos. Some said the left was the obvious decision because the island was founded by the British who drive on the left, others said that right is right because that is the side of the road used in most countries in the world. Neither side was impressed by the arguments of the others so many more reasons were brought forth. What about the predominance of right-handed cart drivers on the island? Had anyone considered the undeniable claim that the coriolis effect would instantly demolish carts if they were driven at any speed on the right-hand side of the road? The debate was prolonged and difficult with many reversals of opinion. But finally a great orator stepped forth and offered the community a solution: "We aren't going to come to an agreement here - there must be compromise. Let us agree to drive on both the left AND right sides of the road.". The result was frequent cart-wrecks - but no matter. Fortunately, within days of this ill-fated decision, a diplomat from a nearby island appeared and suggested that everyone drive down the middle of the road instead.
Sometimes compromise doesn't work and you actually have to find some way to make an arbitrary decision and stick with it no matter what.
See Also: Little_endian#Etymology. SteveBaker (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  Like --Born2cycle (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
We've been over this before, Born2cycle. If you think this analogy is worth a damn, then you haven't learned a thing. How disappointing. You really think this is aptly comparable to a situation in which people die. I hope you never lose a loved one in a traffic accident. You're insulting those of us who have done so. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this name is likely to cause the users of wikipedia to drive down the middle of the internets and crash the intertubes.LedRush (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes because somehow making a compromise here is so much like driving that it has caused a ton of wrecks and brought the whole of Wikipedia to a standstill.∞陣内Jinnai 17:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
What an incredibly misguided and stupid analogy. DEATH, SteveBaker. Do you know what that word means? Have you known anyone who died? Do not compare titling matters on Wikipedia to situations in which people die. It's crass and rude, not to mention aggressively irrelevant. Also, it's annoyingly long-winded.

What we're talking about here is allowing one article to retain an unconventional name. What harm results from this? NONE. Leave it alone; this is disruptive. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that harm does result from this. There are many naming disputes on WP. A good number of them are "complicated". If this article stays in place on its, frankly confusing, title, it would be assumed that this is an "accepted" solution to a very common problem.
This compromise does not help readers (in fact, it implies a matched set or bundle of products) it serves only to make editors happier. To me, that seems like a bad precedent to set. That's the only reason I, personally, care about this specific article. APL (talk) 21:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment No one has articulated a cogent policy based reason against the name, and we know the name comports with policy. We also know that this makes the article more stable. So, no negatives, and several positives. That should be good enough.LedRush (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I totally disagree: Wikipedia:TITLE#Treatment_of_alternative_names specifically tells us to pick one of the two names as the article title and the other as a redirect. That is a completely unambiguous guideline as to what we should do here - just pick one and make the other be a redirect. The problem is merely that the editors involved have become insanely pig-headed about this rather trivial matter and cannot achieve consensus on how they are going to follow that guideline. In the end, the consensus was to blow off the Wikipedia guideline and just do what the heck they wanted - which is (very clearly) not acceptable to the wider Wikipedia community. For chrissakes - nobody outside of this small group of editors gives a damn which name is picked as the title - and absolutely everyone outside of this small group agrees that the title that was chosen is unacceptable. So toss a coin already! SteveBaker (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
For someone who doesn't care what we name this article you seem to care that we not use the current name. That seems to me like the people who work on this article can be damned because you and others personally feel that it violates your sense of what policy says even though you won't ever come by and work on it trying to help figure out a title and instead tell us to pick on or the other when its clear that won't happen because their is no compromise except a title like the current one. It appears those who come here now just want to ram down the throat here some title to force policy from the top-down because of beliefs that ignoring the past history and problems its causes as though you somehow know better. Policy is not meant to be some kind of straight-jacket. It is meant to help guide and there are times when exceptions can and should be made. This imo doesn't even amount to that, but if you feel it does, I'd still say its that time.∞陣内Jinnai 17:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
The people who worked on this article to date do not WP:OWN it.
Furthermore if you craft a precedent-setting potential solution to a very common problem, you can hardly be surprised when it attracts scrutiny. It's not even as if this is the world's biggest naming dispute. APL (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
(after ec - totally agree with Jinnai - well said) No, SteveBaker. You're wrong when you say, "absolutely everyone outside of this small group agrees that the title that was chosen is unacceptable". Most Wikipedians don't give a shit. I'm willing to wager that most Wikipedians, becoming familiar with the particulars of this case, would say, "well, that's unconventional, but if it works, cool!". Most Wikipedians are not hung-up on following rules to the letter.

If you wish to support your contention that "absolutely everyone outside of this small group agrees that the title that was chosen is unacceptable", then you're gonna need some serious evidence. I would claim that 90% of the community would find the current request to be tendentious, disruptive, and unnecessary. Prove me wrong. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


Comment If you're concerned that the title somehow breaks Wikipedia naming conventions, please look at WP:AND. Wolftengu (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
See also: Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Misunderstanding_of_WP:AND. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I just commented there. Wolftengu (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


Comment: The first sentence of AND encapsulates what this is. The Genesis is not quite the same as the Mega Drive if you look at it. If it was just the reception, that would be one thing, but its not. The Genesis units in the US are different from Mega Drive units, even the Genesis ones, elsewhere. They are from the same family, but its like saying Windows 95 is the same as Windows 98 because it looks the same.∞陣内Jinnai 17:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Not true, the hardware is exactly the same outside of being set for different TV standards (which are set by the positioning of a certain diode on the motherboard). The only real major difference is the outer shell design. Wolftengu (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I found this via a discussion at the WT:TITLE page. This seems to be a complex situation in which two similar products are known by different names, both common in different regions. The current name is not ideal (I'd personally prefer "... or Mega Drive"), but it seems to have some support in policy in the form of WP:AND. The proposed title ("Genesis (Sega Mega Drive)") does not make sense to me: it appears to be disambiguated, although there is no real ambiguity.
    To respond to ErikHaugen, X and Y aren't quite the same thing here: as far as I can tell on the basis of Google image searches, the design of the case is quite different between the two products. A person who was unfamiliar with the underlying technology would be unlikely to look at the two and immediately assume that they are one and the same. So in one respect, at least, they're different. Jakew (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
    • "it appears to be disambiguated, although there is no real ambiguity". What do you mean? Genesis is arguably the most common name for this topic, and it is really ambiguous. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
      • The problem with picking one name over the other brings up the issue of verifying just how popular the names were in their respective regions, and in comparison to each other. The numbers aren't exactly there, the data isn't really verifiable. That's what's been causing a lot of the long-term drama, which was resolved just by combining the two names together on equal terms. Wolftengu (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
        • If the names are so very close in notability terms, then it really matters very, very little which one you pick. Even if you get it wrong and pick the name with only 40% of the common usage for the article title with the 60% usage one being a redirect, it's truly not that important. Since there will be a perfectly good redirect from the other name, it matters not a damn to the end-user either. Having established one of the two names to use as the primary article title, and which the redirect (even if you did so by tossing a coin) - then it is always possible to overturn that decision later if compelling evidence comes to light in reliable sources - but since you need a consensus to change it, you shouldn't have the article changing names all the time unless the reason to rename it is very compelling. You can even ask an admin person to kindly lock the article against renaming and only unlock it if/when there is consensus to do so. This is not (by a long shot) the first article to have this problem. It happens in articles about things like cars (which are frequently badge-engineered with slightly different trim levels and color schemes for different companies under totally different names) - and plants and animals (where there are frequently multiple common names for the same animal in different places)...this is not a new problem. What does matter is that Wikipedia look like a uniformly written encyclopedia - with standards for things like how articles are named - and the "A and B" choice for the article is just not the way things are done around here. SteveBaker (talk) 19:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
          • I completely agree with the above. And I can't understand why people keep saying the cutrent title is in line with [WP:AND]] when it's clearly not. The two are the SAME thing, not just similar but distinctly different like Pokemon games or whatever. The fact they have moderately different designs between the regions isn't relevant (and is the European Megadrive the same as the Japanese one?). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
            • No kidding they're the same thing, but what difference does that make? All three of you are STILL ignoring the history behind the article, and the reasoning behind the name we finally settled on before. Wolftengu (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Question: Has anyone thought about "Sega Genesis or Mega Drive" as the title? Blueboar (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Yes, I'm opposing my own proposal, in favor of supporting Dohn Joe's compromise suggestion below to move to Fourth-generation Sega console]]. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Question Is there any other page on the wiki that, as this does at present, refers to a single product by two names (for instance as used in different markets) with an 'and'? Similarly, is there any other page on the wiki that does so by putting one of those names in parentheses? Thirdly, does it really matter which name is in big letters at the top of the page as long as it has all appropriate redirects and both (or all) versions are mentioned in the lead? SamBC(talk) 18:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

New compromise title: Fourth-generation Sega console

I realize it's not ideal, but hear me out. In the battle between "Airplane" and "Aeroplane", we currently have Fixed-wing aircraft. In the battle between "Football" and "Soccer", we have Association Football. In the battle between "Sega Genesis" and "Mega Drive", I propose Fourth-generation Sega console. Why? Well, it's precise, accurate, more natural and consistent than the current compromise, and only slightly less concise (four letters extra). It'll make the "outside article title-obsessed people" happy, and it should be equally acceptable to Genesis and Mega Drive fanatics. Now that would be a broad consensus, wouldn't it? Dohn joe (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Not ideal, but I'd support that. It would work fine, and both regional names could have equal weight as redirects. APL (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, not ideal, yet brilliant none-the-less. Support. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose because this recent "uproar" over the naming has been manufactured and manipulated by Born2cycle as a way to push his obsessive and dictatorial naming rules agenda. Just leave the damn article alone. Seriously. Stop with the strawmen, the negativity and bickering, the twisting of other people's words, the obtuse and unclear arguments over "inappropriate guideline usage". All your doing is restarting the long drama fest this article's endured for years now, after we were potentially able to put it to rest once and for all. It's unnecessary, the whole lot of it. Wolftengu (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Do you have anything substantive to say, pro or con, regarding Dohn joe's proposal? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
    • It's not really assuming good faith to say that problems are being "manufactured" by certain users. If a problem exists, anybody on entire the planet is welcome to comment and try to fix it. (The people who were involved in the previous debate don't WP:OWN the article's title!) Personally, I wasn't aware of Born2Cycle, or the user that brought this to my attention until this, so they hold no particular influence over me, but I see this as a problem that needs to be fixed. APL (talk) 05:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - this seems like a reasonable title for a product with multiple names where non single one is more common than the others. (note: was asked to comment here by Born2cycle).   Will Beback  talk  00:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Wolf and also its classification as a Fourt-generation is disputed controversial. It viollates WP:NPOV. as its claiming that this is the fourth-generation console when of all the systems, sega's classification of which generation their consoles belong to has been the most disputed by RSes. That title would be less neutral.∞陣内Jinnai 00:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose You can list both names its commonly known by, as it is now. No need to waste time changing it to a name no one will recognize. Let it be already. No sense dragging this on out again. Dream Focus 00:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment If consensus here does not support this compromise proposal, then it has been suggested[1] that MOS:RETAIN indicates this title be reverted to Sega Genesis, because that's how it was created back in 2001[2]. Yes, I know this article was later merged with Mega Drive, but in terms of a virtual coin toss, going with the name it had at the earliest date is exactly what following MOS:RETAIN accomplishes. That's certainly an option for the closing admin to take. If that's done, there will be no reasonable argument based in broad consensus (as reflected in policy) for moving this article again, and it will be stable. We've seen this countless times. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment How much time and energy has been devoted to discussing the article's name versus actually improving the article itself? I've been on Wikipedia long enough to realize how easy it is to get caught up in things that - all things considered - are relatively minor. Most of our readers will not care what the article is called. Most won't even give it a second thought. How about we just flip a coin (heads - Sega Genesis, tails - Mega Drive) and all just move on? If no one wants to volunteer and can be trusted, I'll do it. I really don't care what the article is called. We all need to just move on. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Bloody ludicrous. My phone is a HTC Wildfire and HTC Buzz, I own a copy of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone and Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone, and I used to drive a Nissan Cherry and Nissan Sentra and Nissan Sunny and Holden Astra.

So, whether you feel the caring is justified or not, people do care. And the only way to resolve these issues is with discussion like this. I think the coin toss is as good a suggestion as any, except that following MOS:RETAIN (choosing the earliest title used) is essentially the same thing, but is verifiable. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The only real response you've ever given on the article name was that this "use of WP:AND is untenable". You've propped up false analogies about other articles that may have multiple possible names, and use that to manipulate others to come here and respond to your demands in your favor. You continue to blow off about how "wrong" the article name is yet you STILL ignore the reasons behind it. Do any of those reasons matter to you? Do you understand why we SHOULD use this article name? I suggest you actually read the previous RfCs we've had leading up to the current page name, the lack of concrete information regarding the two marques of the machine, etc. That is why we decided the current name. Do you understand that? How many more times do I need to say it before you understand? Or are you just not listening?
I think I'm done here, I'm tired of dealing with this. Wolftengu (talk) 01:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Concrete: The article, Sega Genesis, existed in 2001. No article named Mega Drive existed then (and didn't until 2003 as far as I can tell). How is that not concrete? What else is there to consider that might trump that? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Also, on this talk page, in the short time between when the combo title was first proposed and this article was moved to it, there was very little serious discussion about how problematic the combo title is, except that somebody said it was supported by WP:AND, and everybody else apparently just accepted that. After it was moved the issue was brought to WT:AT, where a number of people expressed concern before I learned about it and became involved. It's absurd to blame me or any one person for all that. Anyway, we should be looking for, and working on, a solution, not seeking to blame. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
We have a solution. One with consensus. What you're doing seems deliberately disruptive and misleading.LedRush (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
WP:RETAIN is about the variety of English used, not titles. The last title to have consensus was Mega Drive, where the article has been, uninterrupted, since 2006. There was never a consensus to move during that period, despite a few (not nearly as many as some people seem to think) discussions on it. So if there's a "reversion" it should be to the previous title - the last one that had the backing of consensus, not the one that was rejected, especially given the circumstances of moving away from it in the first place. And LedRush - a local consensus among a few editors, especially when they've misunderstood the policy they rely on for their argument, doesn't outweigh the consensus of the community as a whole, which is what policy is formed by. Miremare 15:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Would it be accurate to say you think the title of this article should be Mega Drive and not Sega Genesis? If so, is it because you prefer Mega Drive over Sega Genesis for some reason? If so, what is that reason? Or is it only because you believe we should in general prefer "the last stable name" over "the first name used for this topic"? --Born2cycle (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
A bit of both. I do support Mega Drive as the title, principally as Genesis was a re-branding used only in one region, while Mega Drive was both the console's original name, and the one used everywhere else in the world. But yes, if we're talking about reverting the title (of this or any other article in a similar situation) then I think it should be back to the last one to have consensus support. However, I have changed my stance slightly in that I think a neutral descriptive title like "Sega 16-bit console" as mentioned below, would solve problems that are otherwise never going to go away if either individual name is used. Miremare 18:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • OK—but I would strongly prefer either Sega Genesis or Mega Drive. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is one of the dumbest threads I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and I've seen some bad ones. We have a new consensus for a title that fits in with WP naming conventions and has the ability to end a long term dispute. But instead of adhering, an extremely disruptive editor has decided the name isn't good enough for him, and another editor has suggested a confusing, cryptic suggestion which uses a term that many on the video game project feel is original research, and that most readers of Wikipedia would have no idea of what it means unless they were hardcore gamers. This idea is so monumentally bad that I have a hard time believing that someone suggested it. We are here to provide encyclopedic content to readers in a way they can understand. This title prevents that goal from happening.LedRush (talk) 12:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
    "Monumentally bad" seems a tad harsh, considering the very first line of the article says that "Sega Mega Drive is a fourth-generation video game console". It may be controversial, but it apparently has enough consensus to lead off the article. Dohn joe (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Oppose - This is a good idea which could easily and naturally break the tie between the two camps of long-term editors. So normally, I'd support the heck out of it. Sadly, I'm also opposed to using the concept of "Nth-generation" to describe video game consoles - it's unencyclopeadic and vague. That's a shame - but one has to have at least a modicum of consistency in one's !votes - although small part of me secretly wishes this proposal would win! SteveBaker (talk) 13:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Reluctant oppose - echoing SteveBaker's comment above, regarding "fourth generation". Would prefer "Sega 16-bit console" as less ambiguous. And it would probably be better to have a discussion about what would make a good title rather than repeated move requests/RFCs. Miremare 15:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
    If either of you would support it, I'd be happy to propose Sega 16-bit console. Dohn joe (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
    That would be a little better...but honestly, "Sega Genesis" is the right title. SteveBaker (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
    I'd like to see what a few other people think of it first, but you'd have my support on that one. Miremare 18:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
    It's better than Nth-generation, but better than incredibly bad doesn't make something good, just less bad.∞陣内Jinnai 14:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I suggested a similar compromise separately on WT:VG, so I support the principal and providing we get a decent neutral name in the same vein as Fixed wing aircraft then I support it. The new proposal of Sega 16-bit console is better than the first suggestion based on generation, so I Support it. I don't support the Generation version. I think there are only two ways forward, the present compound title or a Solomon solution like this, where neither side has the "correct" name. - X201 (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
    • It just struck me that this comment, though reasonable looking and sounding at first glance, is entirely concerned with dispute resolution. That is, it focuses on finding a solution that resolves the issue between the two sides of editors. But is that a perspective that even deserves consideration? Shouldn't we instead all be looking at what is the best title for this article for readers, and best considers the broad consensus of the entire community, not just two little groups of half-a-dozen-or-so editors each? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
      • First off, it is of concern since there are a number of readers who take issue with either name and will likely with any name. However it also impacts the editors because rather than focus energy on improving the article, we spend it here, like times as these, talking about what is the best name. It isn't like there is a clear cut answer either. The current title solved the issue of editors. It probably won't solve the issue of readers, but chosing to use Mega Drive, Genesis or some other concocted name won't solve that either.∞陣内Jinnai 18:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
      • I think readers and editors are going to be pretty much in the same boat for what they consider to be the "best" title for the article, depending on whether they prefer Genesis or Mega Drive. In fact I'm sure some of the title discussions in the archives have been started by readers who simply saw their idea of the "wrong" title being used and came to the talk page to suggest it be changed. I think the best outcome for the article as a whole is a neutral descriptive title that pacifies all sides of the naming dispute for both editors and readers. It's also easy to explain reasonably: "The console was marketed as both "Mega Drive" and "Genesis" depending on geographical location. For reasons of neutrality the article uses a descriptive title instead of either official name". Or somesuch. I'm not saying "Sega 16-bit console" is necessarily the best version of a descriptive title - though I can't personally think of a better one - but I definitely think now that a neutral title is best for everyone. Miremare 17:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
      • You're right - we're falling into the trap of picking a less-good name simply to resolve an editorial dispute - and that's a bad thing. In the end, the best title for this article is either "Sega Genesis" or "Sega Mega Drive" - and anything other than one of those would be a worse choice that we'd be picking purely to end a rather farcical dispute. We really need to find a way to choose between the two best names and coming up with yet more compromise names is a bad idea. SteveBaker (talk) 14:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The dispute is farcical, I agree, but at the same time both names are the "correct" name. Imposing a choice of one or the other won't solve the problem. The only way to stop the to and fro is to come up with a different solution. Both names have been tried, each one coming complete with numerous "move to the other name" discussions. The only way that I can see to stop the disruption of successive move discussions, is to either have both names or neither. As one of the main contributors to the article, I am really getting ground down by all of this, and I think its telling that the article's main contributor - and its driving force over the last couple of years - also hasn't contributed to this debate. Perhaps they're feeling as ground down as I am. This move discussion isn't just about readers, its also about the handful of people who look after the article on a day-to-day basis, because without them, the readers will suffer as well.- X201 (talk) 15:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Will all due respect to all those who have worked hard on the content of this article about a defunct game console, I suggest how we select the title of this article potentially has much broader and deeper impact on Wikipedia -- as a bad precedent if nothing else -- than does the content of this article. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
When you follow the statement about "with all due respect" with a deliberately condescending and insulting jab at the subject matter, you are saying that no respect is actually due.LedRush (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I have utmost respect for the editors of this and all articles. I'm just saying the content of this particular article is not as important or influential as is the content of many other articles. It's not a topic that would even be covered by most encyclopedias (that doesn't mean it should be covered in WP, just that it's not as "encyclopedic" as, say, the article on Winston Churchill or the one about another defunct artifact, the Ford Model T, which had a much bigger impact on humanity).

Therefore if these discussions about the title discourage some good editors to stop working on this article, that's unfortunate, but arguably worth it if the result of the discussions is a title that does not cause confusion nor creates a bad precedent, as the current one does. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd wager that the Genesis would be covered here as a rise of the video game consoles. It was the 2nd major console after the NES (which would be covered because of the impact the industry has had). It would be covered in the same vein as other competitors who came up to face off against the Model T as the first major competitor since the 81 crash.∞陣内Jinnai 19:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not arguing that the Genesis is not significant within the area of game consoles. I'm saying its significance as a whole is limited due the limited importance (relatively speaking) of game consoles. I mean, there is no comparing the impact of game consoles on society (entertainment for mostly young males) to the impact of the automobile industry (for example) on society, which transformed transportation fundamentally and had repercussions throughout society. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I think there is. This is because you are equating video games to primarily pastimes of young adult males. That is far from the case for the past 2 decades. There are many case studies on how video gaming has begun (we still in the early stages) of a paradign shift in how education is taught for stuff from elementary school to job training. That's just one aspect, but that is clearly as big of a shift as how people traveled.∞陣内Jinnai 04:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
There is a third solution: binding arbitration by an uninvolved party. It doesn't matter what they come up with so long as it's more or less written in stone. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 12:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose this wouldn't even be a problem if we had just went with the common name (even if it's only roughly 60-40 the common name), and I think the compromise title is fine. Most people who have a problem with the current title aren't even willing to research if Sega Genesis or Mega Drive is the common name, and they just say "oh, I don't care which". That's not helpful, that's how we got into this situation; the common name wasn't the article name, most people didn't care since Mega Drive is nearly the common name anyway (and is actually more common than five years ago thanks to the Wikipedia article being named Mega Drive after five years of it being named Sega Genesis...the only reason Mega Drive even got in was because of the two article merger), and it just becomes a foggy situation at that point that most people aren't going to want to muddle through.--SexyKick 22:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, yea. All arguments would be easier if everyone who disagreed with you suddenly agreed with you. Obviously. (Please see the rest of this talk page for about a zillion reasons your position is absolutely wrong, and a zillion more reasons your position is completely right. No need to rehash it here.) APL (talk) 01:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Well SexyKick does make one valid point. There are a ton of drive-by comments of people saying "just pick one" and don't really care. In fact they go out of their way in some cases to make it clear they aren't interested in the console, they just think people should be able to easily come to an agreement when it doesn't concern them directly.∞陣内Jinnai 04:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, people who aren't emotionally invested shouldn't be allowed to make basic editorial decisions. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 12:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
It it precisely this detachment from the pent-up emotion of 7 years of fighting that allows us "drive-by" folk to stand back and point out that it doesn't matter a damn which title you pick. Being "interested in the console" is a very, very bad reason to fight about the name of the article because you have what amounts to a conflict of interest. You are more concerned that the memory of this piece of electronics from your past is carefully preserved than you are that Wikipedia be a well structured encyclopedia. Just because I don't have a particular interest in the console (although I do have an interest in video games in general since my life and career revolves around writing such games) does not mean that I'm blind to the arguments and counter-arguments about how to name the encyclopedia article. The plain and simple fact is that the larger demands of the encyclopedia require that you pick one of the two common names for this machine for the article title and redirect the other - making the fact that it was known by two different names quite clear in the very first sentence of the article lede. The fact that experts on the console itself have argued this for seven years is a blindingly clear statement that neither title is obviously better than the other...which in turn means that it truly doesn't matter which one you pick. If one name was clearly better, you'd have won the argument cleanly many years ago and we wouldn't be having this debate. Really, honestly, it doesn't matter a damn which you pick. You talk as though this were a new problem - but it's not. Check out the archives of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles and you'll see dozens of situations just exactly like this one. (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_28#Nissan_Atlas for example) - and in every WikiProject I've been involved with, the answer is the same: When some object is 'badge engineered' and appears under two or more names in different markets, you pick one name as the article title and disambiguate the other. It's not a matter for debate - it's how the encyclopedia works. So now we need a way to pick one of the two obvious names and make it stick by referring all subsequent move requests to the prior decision without allowing them to grow into giant debates. It works throughout the rest of the encyclopedia - this article is absolutely no exception - it's not even unusual. SteveBaker (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: Binding arbitration

I believe that it is abundantly clear from the preceding discussions that the larger community does not accept the present title for the article because it violates Wikipedia guidelines. I don't believe that any of the other compromise titles have anything like consensus - or even a 51% majority to choose them. There are no compelling arguments that make for a clean decision between "Sega Genesis" and "Sega Mega Drive" on the basis of objective criteria - because if there were, the editors here would have made that decision years ago.

Ergo, we need to stick to one of the two most obvious titles - but we need some way to make that decision without more years of argument.

We also need a way to make that choice 'stick' and to curtail future discussions on this topic.

I also fully understand that the long-standing and committed editors of this article have emotional ties to particular names but I ask them to take a deep breath cast those ties aside in the larger interests of Wikipedia and of this article in particular.

I would like all concerned to agree to binding arbitration - but not via ArbCom (whose remit does not match this issue). I propose that we do this as follows:

  1. I (SteveBaker) will assemble a title selection panel of seven experienced editors people from WikiProject VideoGames who have NOT been involved in any of the previous rounds of discussions on the name of this article. I will not be one of the them and will not seek to influence their decision - even though I have no particular personal preference for the final choice of title.
  2. They agree to go off, read the earlier debates and within one week choose between the two most obvious names for this article. vis Sega Genesis or Sega Mega Drive - with a simple majority verdict between them being all that is required to decide the matter.
  3. That we obtain (in advance) a consensus for each person here to commit to support whatever that decision is - even if it is not the decision that the individual would prefer.
  4. That we place a prominent banner at the top of this Talk: page and a hidden comment at the top of the article that refers to a 'FAQ' that explains why the article is named the way that it is and explains that per Wikipedia policy, it requires a consensus (not a simple majority) to change it again. The contents of this FAQ would come from the decision of the title selection panel from (1), above.
  5. That we request an admin to lock this article from page-moves for 12 months with a review of that lock being made at that time.
  6. That discussions of moving the article subsequent to arbitration be confined to "Do you have new and overwhelming evidence - backed by reliable sources - that clearly show that the title is now incorrect?" - beyond that statement of fact we curtail discussion and agree that we don't feed the troll - even if we happen to agree with them.
  7. That in future, the article may only be moved after overwhelming consensus.
  8. That future attempts to rename the article without first obtaining new and overwhelming evidence for such change (per clauses (6) and (7), above) will be treated as disruptive editing - with appropriate admin action taken against violators.
  9. That the community congratulate the editors here for making a superb article and for coming to a conclusion on this debate in a reasonable fashion.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Sega Genesis or Mega Drive. Not Sega Mega Drive.--SexyKick 23:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Accepted and updated (above). SteveBaker (talk) 12:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - with two reservations. One, it may be wise to go outside of WP:VG. I'm not sure where else it would be taken, but there are hundreds of thousands of registered users, most of whom are probably unbiased and perfectly capable of determining an appropriate title. Two, what about articles like Mega-CD and Sega Multi-Mega? I'm inclined to say that they should be considered individually and not be affected at all by this process unless they're explicitly included for consideration. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I presume that Mega-CD and Sega Multi-Mega have already been discounted as clearly less significant terms than those I propose...the choice of the current title strongly reinforces that this part of the decisionmaking is at least already agreed. I feel it's important to clearly delineate the possible outcomes of arbitration so that we can all be sure that the arbitrated name won't be something clearly unacceptable or just plain wrong. Because the arbitration would be binding to all concerned, it would be exceedingly difficult (by design) to change the name again. Hence we should boil this down to the only two candidates that are ever likely to be acceptable. SteveBaker (talk) 23:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We have a current consensus to deal with the issue, and the current disruptive influx of editors has not overturned that consensus. The issue is resolved.LedRush (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Your argument reminds me of a similar situation I once encountered, and someone's reply to it. "How remarkable. Those who favor the current convention believe that a lack of consensus means that we need to keep it!" -John K (talk · contribs) [4] --Born2cycle (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Opposition to the current title was immediate and pronounced on WT:VG. Compared to the original move discussion (the successful one) and post-move discussion section, the discussion there lasted slightly longer and was slightly larger and I don't see a single person who responded positively to the change that wasn't also involved in the original discussion. That's what your "current consensus" looks like. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Misstatement of facts. There was opposition, but there were also editors who were fine with the name change for both sides that have not really been involved in either dicussion. The majority of commentary though was from involved editors on both sides. A lot of commentary was also biased "go with Genesis" or "go with Mega Drive" commentary because those people felt it was "right".∞陣内Jinnai 17:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
        • There was a lot of noise from what I understand are the usual suspects, but point me to the uninvolved editor(s) that expressed support for the current title or even support for keeping the current title. All I see is indifference and opposition. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
          • Since you asked. KieferSkunk, who did not really participate in the discussions, wanted to keep "Mega Drive" as it is in his/her opinion, but would rather us just keep the name and not have continuing discussions.
          • While it was not resounding, Kung Fu Man did support it as simply a means to get people working on the article instead of focusing their energy here, in the talk page coming up with the "correct" name. He didn't really participate in the dicussion of the name change.
          • Finally, the 2nd-to-last comment (by Despatche) is a clear biased opinion that "Mega Drive" is correct claiming that his opinion was somehow unbiased.
          • Therfore the only 2 in oppoistion who hadn't really talked much here is Odie5533 and Guyinblack25. That's 2 for and 2 against and only who has a clearly biased opinion for Mega Drive, not the "overwhelming" numbers you claim if you ignore people who have had signifigant conversations here. Most of those against railed a lot there while most of those for were silent or made only a few comments.∞陣内Jinnai 18:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
            • If you include myself and SteveBaker, there were six people who voiced opposition to the present title. No one who wasn't posting on this talk page in September (i.e. uninvolved editors) voiced support. The bottom line is there is no community consensus in support of the current title. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
              • Then you also have to include everyone who also agreed with the change to the current title. That is far more than 2 people.∞陣内Jinnai 19:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
                • I don't know where the miscommunication happened, but you've clearly misconstrued what I'm saying. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
                  • My point is, there was ample time and it was well known that the name change was ongoing in WT:VG. Minemare went there and several personal talk pages to protest his grievence in an attempt to get a group that would agree with him. He found it at AT where no one opposed his viewpoint until I happened to stumble upon the conversation. Less than a month later, without the paint was still drying here, a disruptive move request was made without trying to talk to those who came to the conclusion first and see why or the history and especially when the change had overwhelming support from multiple people not only those who frequent this page, but also those who cared little for what goes on here. Since then things have escalated from what was seen as a decided issue because of that successful attempt at forum shopping.∞陣内Jinnai 20:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
                    • I looked in the archive and there was one notice about a name change on Sep 4. It was already archived by the time the current title discussion started. I had no idea what was going on until after the fact and I'm sure I'm not the only one. And however Minemare may have acted, I don't think bolsters the case for consensus. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 20:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't see any consensus here. APL (talk) 18:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Exactly. There was an overwhelming consensus to use the current title, and no consensus to change it.LedRush (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
        • I think you need to read WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Particularly, note: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." - that is precisely what is happening here. The limited group of editors of this article cannot override the community on the wider issue of how articles are named. That's it...you have no viable consensus for the present title because it is very clear that once exposed to a wider community, the title has been shown to be quite utterly unacceptable to everyone other than the narrow group of editors who have historically worked here. You have fallen into the WP:OWN trap. SteveBaker (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment If anything I think it should be people from outside the VG project, and they could just have a list of pre-agreed points. We've already established the various criteria (Original name: Mega Drive - Sold in US before Europe - Sales figures: Incomplete - etc) I'm sure some sort of "Name 1 has these points..." and "Name 2 has these points..." list could help. The criteria are established, its just which criteria should be used to decide the name that is the problem. Boiling it down to a list of bullet points could be could be a way to proceed. The previous move debates didn't have many outside opinions. Perhaps before this process starts, someone from outside could go through the various points and comment on their worth, it may help bring a new light to the various points of argument and allow the different camps to see the other side of each other's point. - X201 (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
    I believe if you go through the archive, that has already been done.∞陣内Jinnai 16:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: There has been no case shown that this violates any existing guideline/policy, just normal conventions. WP:AND does not prohibit it. Dispute resolution would supports it as it did solve the dispute for all but 1 editor who started this whole second round of disruptive naming. Finally, citing that consistency for the sake of consistency as being the primary factor in naming is weightiing that one above the other criteria.∞陣内Jinnai 16:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Also I would add that #8 would also mean that if there was compelling 'new' evidence for a name change that editor who brought up a request would be guilty of disruption. That flies in the face of any legit attempt to move the article if this were to go into effect. I don't agree with this, but I especially don't agree with the wording of #8 because it would imply any, even legit attempts with new, compelling evidence, would be treated as disruptive, ie and defacto could set the article's title in stone by simply pointing to that clause and silencing any decent with new evidence.∞陣内Jinnai 17:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
    I agree, point #8 was poorly worded. I have fixed it and trust that this resolves at least that objection. SteveBaker (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
    Jinnai, there has been "no case shown that this violates any existing guideline/policy"? Are you kidding? Let's look at the policy:
  • Recognizability – Is the candidate title a recognizable name or description of the topic?
  • Naturalness – What title(s) are readers most likely to look for in order to find the article? Which title(s) will editors most naturally use to link from other articles? Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English.
  • Precision – How precise is the title under discussion? Consensus titles usually use names and terms that are precise (see below), but only as precise as necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously. For technical reasons, no two Wikipedia article titles can be identical. For information on how ambiguity is avoided in titles, see the precision and disambiguation section below and the disambiguation guideline.
  • Conciseness – Is the title concise or is it overly long?
  • Consistency – Does the proposed title follow the same pattern as those of similar articles? Many of these patterns are documented in the naming guidelines listed in the Specific-topic naming conventions box above, and ideally indicate titles that are in accordance with the principles behind the above questions.
  • Is the candidate title a recognizable name or description of the topic? No. Sega Genesis and Mega Drive is not the name of the topic (it might be argued that it's a description, but that's not relevant to topics like this one that have names.
  • Naturalness – What title(s) are readers most likely to look for in order to find the article? Which title(s) will editors most naturally use to link from other articles? Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English. No. Readers are most unlikely to look for "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive". Editors are almost certainly not going to naturally use "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive" to link to this article. This title does not convey what the subject is actually called in English, because nobody calls it "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive".
  • Precision – How precise is the title under discussion? Consensus titles usually use names and terms that are precise (see below), but only as precise as necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously. This title is ambiguous and confusing, not precise.
  • Conciseness – Is the title concise or is it overly long? It is overly long.
  • Consistency – Does the proposed title follow the same pattern as those of similar articles? No. It uses a highly unusual form.
I can't think of any other title I've ever seen that is more violation of policy than this one. It flunks every single question. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
It is precise. This is an article about both the Genesis and Mega Drive. It is also a description moreso imo than a common name. I made that statement in the previous argument that if Sega Genesis and Mega Drive was used it would be considered a more descriptive title since it is not in any way, shape or form the common title. Consistency also should not be applied because the naming of this console is wholely unique in its history. The closest would be some video games like Dragon Warrior, which people from time to time have disputed that name and even wanted something like Dragon Warrior a.k.a Dragon Quest.∞陣内Jinnai 18:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that sure looks like disingenuous rationalization to me. You know perfectly well that the only reason this article is not at Sega Genesis or Mega Drive is because a small group of editors can't decide which one it should be. So the present descriptive title was contrived especially to address this internal-to-Wikipedia political quagmire (that should never have manifested itself in anything readers actually see, much less something as prominent as an article title). The topic of this article does not naturally lend itself to a descriptive title at all. No topic with a name does. We only use descriptive titles for topics that don't have names in the real world, like List of game manufacturers.

There is nothing unique about a product that has been marketed under two names (that it might be unique for games is neither here nor there). That's why we have redirects. Countless examples have been given; for one, see where Volkswagen Rabbit takes you. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

  • (after e/c)It's not precise. It incorrectly implies a matched set of two separate things. England and Wales,Fish and Chips,Statler and Waldorf,Supply and demand, etc ,etc. You couldn't go to the store and ask for a "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive", and then go home, open the box, and hold the Genesis in one hand and the Mega Drive in the other! (I found those examples by doing a google search for articles with the word "And" in the title. I looked through the first 30 pages of results, and couldn't find a single article that was a conjunction of two different regional terms. Even though there are roughly a zillion products marketed under more than one name.) APL (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
    Doesn't matter if you can't order a "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive". The point is it is still precise. The article is about the Mega Drive and Genesis, not one of those. Since its not a case where one clearly dominates the other, then both are fine. I did say I was up for BB's proposal of Sega Genesis or Mega Drive, which would comply with your anicdote of ordering something, because you certainly could order a "Sega Genesis or a Sega Mega Drive". However, that does not invalidate that the title is still precise.∞陣内Jinnai 19:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
    What part of "[the current title] incorrectly implies a matched set of two separate things" do you not understand? If the editors of Bill Clinton could not decide on whether to use that title or his more formal name, would you argue William Jefferson Clinton and Bill Clinton is precise?

    By the way, this title is so bad you can't even link to it directly from other articles, because it's not natural. Go ahead, click on What links here and you'll see. I can't even find a single reference that goes directly to this article - they all go through Mega Drive or Sega Genesis. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

    The part I don't understand is why I couldn't go to a store, get a Genesis and Mega Drive, and hold one in one hand and the other in the other. I could do that just as I could for Pokemon Red and Blue. The current title meets all the name criteria listed above, and the suggestion that it is imprecise seems especially odd when it is inherently more precise than a title which lists just one or the other (which would be slightly misleading, seeing as the article is about both). So weird.LedRush (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
    These words are incoherent. This answer doesn't even begin to answer my question. Instead, it rambles on with nonsense based on the absurd premise that "Mega Drive" and "Sega Genesis" refer to distinct concepts. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC) --reword to excise personal attack (I'm very sorry about that, and thanks for bringing it to my attention) --Born2cycle (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
    I am sorry you are unable to understand my direct refutation of your points. Have you tried reading my comments more slowly? Also, so you know, several blocks from my home is a shop in which you can buy either a Genesis, a Mega Drive, or both. This shouldn't be hard for you to understand, but for some reason it seems to confuse you to the point that you can't understand sentences either before or after this concept is expressed. I hope the same is not true here, but if so, I would be happy to explain the above yet again.LedRush (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
    No more distinct than the Pokemon games that are released 2 at a time.∞陣内Jinnai 01:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Might be better to go outside WP:VG as X201 says, and I don't think point 8 is necessary given point 5, but other than that, yes. Miremare 17:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
    I have clarified point #8 as a result of earlier comments. SteveBaker (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, but I also agree that volunteers from outside of WP:VG would be best, as I would guess that a lot of WP:VG members would be emotionally attached to one or the other name. (Also, can we please make it clear that this "arbitration" is 100% unrelated to WP's ArbCom?) APL (talk) 18:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I also agree that volunteers from outside of WP:VG would be best. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, based on Miremare's WP:FORUMSHOPing I'd like to ride out the established name for a while. It was a concensus achieved by people who actually work on the article, rather than just bicker over its name.
  1. The Sega Genesis was the most successful brand of the Sega Genesis or Mega Drive, with sales accounting for as little as 55% of the consoles sold bearing the name "Sega Genesis".
  2. There are more native English speaking people in North America than everywhere else in the world combined.
  3. Genesis name is used on GameFAQs, GameSpot, GameRankings and other CNET websites, as well as MobyGames, Ebay, and Amazon.com. These are sites a user new to the subject would go to, and are considered valid resources for Wikipedia articles within context. (as Sega Genesis was the name which most controversy was sparked under)
  4. Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), by far the most English references used in the article use the name "Sega Genesis" or simply "Genesis".
  5. People new to the subject are more common for English speakers to encounter it as "Sega Genesis" due to the primary hubs used for information on video games for said group.
  6. The Sega Genesis name is more common to produce results in search engines over Mega Drive, and Sega Genesis turns up more google search results than Sega Mega Drive.
  7. Sega Genesis was the brand that was first presented to English speaking consumers.
  8. Original name doesn't matter - only common name.

That being said, here are three reasons why the Mega Drive article is not called the "Sega Genesis" article.

  1. The product was intended to be called Mega Drive in America, but a trademark dispute prevented it.
  2. The product is originally named Mega Drive in Japan.
  3. Apart from North American countries, the product was released in all other countries as Mega Drive.--SexyKick 23:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
My two'penth in reply. Have combined a couple of them.
  1. We haven't got full, or even accurate, data for a single region, so its impossible to say which region sold more. The best figures we have, the North American figures are partial figures from numerous sources, that, as far as I'm concerned, still sail too close to WP:SYNTH.
  2. Other websites and paper based sources use Mega Drive, Amazon.com is hardly likely to market Mega Drive products just like Amazon.de.fr.nl.uk.eu is likely to use Genesis.
  3. Google hits aren't the be-all-and-end all. No account has been made of the large EU print based media. The UK alone had more Mega Drive magazines than the US at one point.
  4. As pointed out before, earlier and faster internet adoption rates and a larger population in North America will obviously sway the search results in that direction.
  5. "Original name doesn't matter", immediately before the three points for Mega Drive, all of them based around the original name. I know you would never do it deliberately, and its obviously just an accident of positioning, but it reads like you're Poisoning the well.
As for the reasons why it should stay at Mega Drive:
  1. The trademark dispute and the intention to use Mega Drive - whilst the intention to use the name probably won't carry much weight in a naming dispute, I think the fact that Genesis is an alternative name for a product by a non-NA company should.
  2. Why single out Japan? The fact Mega Drive was the original name is one of the few solid facts that we have, and seeing as we're looking for decisive reasons that will stop the bickering, this is one of them (obviously along with the North American release of it being the first)
  3. The name being used in every region of the World, except North America is another point that isn't in dispute. Whether you're a native English speaker, or one of the millions of others who speak it fluently as an additional language, Mega Drive is the name that they knew the product by. - X201 (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I also agree with using Mega Drive on that basis. We should strive for neutrality between the regions, so the best choice is to use "Mega Drive" simply.
For Ape Escape I insist on using British names (identical to Japanese names in call cases except for the original game) because they are the Japanese names, and so are "neutral."
If all territories use the same English name, then use that. If the territories have multiple English names, pick one. If one set of English names is identical to the Japanese, but the other is not, pick the Japanese name.
WhisperToMe (talk) 14:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
1) It's not necessarily "Forum shopping" to alert outside editors to a problem that is not being resolved. That's what those noticeboards are for! "Forum Shopping" is when you go to one notice board, get told "no", and then try your luck somewhere else. In this case, it looks like virtually all previously uninvolved editors think that "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive" is a bad name.
2) I'd like to again point out that "people who actually [worked] on the article" do not WP:OWN it. In fact, opinions from uninvolved editors are often more likely to resolve disputes because they have no emotional "stake" in the matter. APL (talk) 01:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The point is he went around trying to different locations to try and get a "yes" when Mega Drive was not going to likely stay. He went to VG. He also went to them once again when the name was changed to try and get it overturned. He didn't get a resounding "yes" at VG so he went to AT where he did. That is forum shopping.∞陣内Jinnai 01:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Going to a noticeboard when you don't agree with the outcome, so the wider community has a say, is not an unacceptable form of forum shopping since you are involving the wider community and/or increasing the pool of people who are examining a proposal. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

(Per comments by User:A Quest For Knowledge, User:APL, User:Miremare and [[User:ButOnMethItIs, I have adjusted the proposal to say "seven experienced editors" (not necessarily from WP:VG) and per User:APL I have made it clear that this is not ArbCom-related.) SteveBaker (talk) 23:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Mega Drive instead of Sega Mega Drive per consise. There is no need for a disambig with Mega Drive unlike Genesis. Also point #8 would make anyone bringing up credible, overwhelming RS evidence that could change the name as disruptive because it does not discrimate against those who might bring it up for legit reasons with new evidence vs. those who don't. It assumes everyone is guilty of disruption assumes bad faith.∞陣内Jinnai 01:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There's already a consensus (from the previous move discussion) for the current title; there doesn't yet seem to be a consensus to change it. I don't see any basis for this proposal, which can be paraphrased as "reject this consensus, choose something completely different, impose it by fiat, and tar and feather anyone who questions it". I'm not involved with this article (I've commented once or twice in the above discussion), and don't know much about games consoles, but I can see that this is an unusual situation. I don't think it is fair to characterise this as a bunch of cantankerous editors too deeply-involved to be able to choose a common name; the problem seems to be that choosing a common name may not be the right decision, and perhaps the more familiar editors are with the subject, the more clear that becomes. Lateral thinking is needed, and the present title seems reasonable to me, and complies with policy. It's not ideal, but it's good enough until someone proposes an improvement. Jakew (talk) 10:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support provided that the panel is entirely or mostly not VG folks - don't want to rule out people from the VG wikiproject, and they may have knowledge to assist the panel, but there should be caution. The consensus for the current title is purely WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. It seems that, once the wider community is involved, there is clearly no consensus for the current title, and considerable opposition to it. A lot of people seem to be saying that Sega Genesis or Mega Drive are both fine by them, but don't want to touch a debate over which. A panel that we uphold to make a determination is quite reasonable. I do have a personal preference between the two, and I think it's on logical grounds, but some people who feel they are being logical think the opposite. Ultimately, all it's really about is what text appears at the top of the page and in title bars, as the redirects will all be there. One final caveat, though - it's worth considering giving the panel an option of coming up with a novel solution, within limits, and offering it to the community to see if consensus can accept it. They should have their choice of the two key options in place and ready to be presented if the community can't find consensus behind the novel solution. I'm not sure if doing that would be a good idea, I just wanted to float the notion. SamBC(talk) 11:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
    I actually thought about this very carefully when writing this proposal. I feel strongly that the committee should NOT have the mandate to pick a title other than the two suggested here. The reason for this is as follows: Up until the 'compromise' name was recently chosen, there was strong support for each of the two proposed titles - if we expect the community to agree to this compromise - and to be bound to it with considerable force - then the community has a right to know that the committee won't pick something even more stupid than the title we currently have. If we agreed to the proposal and the committee came up with "Crappy Sega Console" then we'd be bound to support that! Constraining them to merely casting the deciding vote between the two pre-existing choices means that their role is not a 'creative' one - but merely a decision from applicable policy and pre-existing discussions. The worst they could do would be to pick the 49%-correct title rather than the 51%-correct one. Since a large number of commentators here are more than happy to flip a coin to decide, that would not be so terrible. So I would not be able to support this proposal if more than just those two titles were in the mix. SteveBaker (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

(I have updated point #8 in response to several editors pointing out that it is poorly worded. New text is in italics.) SteveBaker (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

A couple of people have suggested that I may have been in error in saying that the second choice for title should be Sega Mega Drive - and that this version of the title should just be just Mega Drive. Is that a generally accepted thing? If so, I'll go and change the proposal accordingly. SteveBaker (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Qualified support. I agree that the panel should at least be a majority of non VG editors. More importantly, however, I think the panel should be able to consider compromise titles. They should be able to consider all the evidence and opinions given here, and choose whichever title they think best fits the article. We can give suggestions (Sega Genesis, Mega Drive, Sega Genesis and Mega Drive, and Sega 16-bit console, for example), but I don't think we should limit their deliberations. The whole point is to put the decision in their hands. If they like the current compromise, then so be it. Dohn joe (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
    • That's at least better in that it gives them the choice to decide what title is appropriate which can include the current one, but I would still oppose it because the basis of it is built on a faulty premise that the title violates policy/guidelines when it doesn't.∞陣内Jinnai 18:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, if needed. Let's wait until the above RM proposal and counter-proposal run down and an admin closes them. Based on the arguments submitted, not counting votes, an admin might argue there is consensus to move the article to something reasonable, and just do it. True, few closing admins have the gumption, but some do, and we might get lucky. But yes, if those are closed again as "no consensus", then I would agree to binding arbitration. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

This is going to sound incredibly nit-picky, but bear with me. Having seen various move debates on WP, I know that anything will be used as a lever. Regarding the panel of editors who will decide the name should this proposal be put into action, I think some steps to make sure that its not an all North American or all other regions panel should be taken, because if they are all from one region you can guarantee the shouts of "bias" will arise. This is a possible problem that needs to be addressed before it develops. - X201 (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The method that I use is:
If English names are same in all regions, use English name
If two or more regions use an English name, and no regions use Japanese name, pick one of the English names
If one or more regions use an English name, but one region uses Japanese name, use that region's Japanese name and set the English language style to that region
I did that with Ape Escape series of articles.
Of course, we could just follow the guidelines set out in Commonname rather than invent new ones.LedRush (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Well we apply the guideline in an appropriate, justifiable manner.
The guideline "Wikipedia:Commonname" now redirects to Wikipedia:Article titles
"Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article. For cases where usage differs among English-speaking countries, see also National varieties of English below."
Wikipedia:Commonname#National_varieties_of_English: "Otherwise, all national varieties of English are acceptable in article titles; Wikipedia does not prefer any national variety over any other. American spellings should not be respelled to British standards, and vice versa; for example, both color and colour are acceptable and both spellings are found in article titles (such as color gel and colour state). Very occasionally a less common but non-nation-specific term is selected so as to avoid having to choose between national varieties: for example, Fixed-wing aircraft was selected to avoid the choice between "Aeroplane" and "Airplane"."
By blindly applying commonname in a manner that prefers American names, one would go against this principle. In reality both UK and American names should have a "chance" of becoming the article title. In Ape Escape, the Japanese also use the British names, so that is the best choice.
I am not blindly applying commonname in a manner that prefers American names. I am applying commonname as written and as it is intended to be applied. Sometimes it may favor an American name, sometimes a British name, sometimes another name. It depends on how reliable sources treat the subject. That commonname doesn't support your view on this one subject is no reason to throw away the guideline and the core principles of Wikipedia. If this goes to binding arbitration, commonname should be guiding principle, not some crap invented to get to the result desired by creator of the criteria.LedRush (talk) 01:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Failure to factor in the US's larger population than the US/UK, or the precedence of the press in the first world and third world, or failure to filter local controversies (Mortal Kombat in the USA) from sources about the actual console (balanced around the world) is indeed "blindly applying commonname in a manner that prefers American names"
If one simply goes by "how many Google hits" without factoring population, it will lean towards US names, because the US has a larger population than the UK and Ireland! And even if you throw in other Commonwealth countries, some don't have as robust/developed presses and/or higher wealth disparities (Pakistan, India, Nigeria, Kenya, etc) so you have to give them "credit" for that too. It becomes a lot of work.
I will continue to promote my process, I will assert that it is 100% compatible with Common name, and that it builds upon Common name. My process is truly a case where "Sometimes it may favor an American name, sometimes a British name, sometimes another name."
The one case where it IS appropriate to promote one variety of English over another, even if, say, it was released under the Japanese name in another market, would be if the console itself had a highly, highly disproportionate impact in one country. I.E. Tec Toy released the Master System in Brazil. On the Portuguese Wikipedia I would insist that it use Brazilian terminology since it was wildly popular in Brazil (unless its popularity in Portugal was equally proportionate, but I am not aware of how popular it was in Portugal)
Because Ape Escape had a similar proportionate impact in the US as it did in the UK (based on games released), we can't apply "Google Hits" as it may unfairly bring up too many USA sources, so instead just make it neutral and choose British names since they match the Japanese names.
WhisperToMe (talk) 04:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
WhisperToMe (talk) 01:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
WhisperToMe (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Definitely. I'd like to say it wouldn't be a problem as most users didn't own a Genesis/Mega Drive, but there are enough people who get bent out of shape about the spelling of 'colou?r' that I think such faith would be misguided. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: binding arbitration is rare on Wikipedia for a good reason: it enjoins editors who weren't around when the arbitration was enacted to something they don't agree to. The only examples I can think of like this are the Gdánsk vote (since weakened severely) and the Ireland poll (which is binding only until it's not). In any case, you'd have to include the original name as a "no consensus" solution, because you can't effect change without consensus. Sceptre (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment on opposition to the arbitration proposal

The four separate Oppose !votes in the discussion above (User:Jakew, User:LedRush, User:Jinnai and User:SexyKick) are unanimous in their reasoning. All four argue that the present title has consensus and that there is no consensus to change - so no further proposals can possibly be supported.

Rather than argue this in four separate mini-threads, let us discuss that point here - because if we can settle it, then we have no more dispute and we can proceed with the arbitration.

It seems to me that the counter-arguments to these four Oppose !votes revolve around several Wikipedia policies - which the opposers really need to take time to consider:

  1. WP:CCC says that consensus can change. "...consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding. Moreover, such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions. While past "extensive discussions" can guide editors on what influenced a past consensus, editors need to re-examine each proposal on its own merits, and determine afresh whether consensus either has or has not changed." - this alone should dismiss all four Oppose !votes.
  2. WP:OWN says that we may not employ the concept of "existing editors" or "long-standing editors" versus "newcomers". Those who oppose this measure are all long standing editors of this article - but they don't own it and the fact of their valuable contributions doesn't give them the right to exclude others from re-debating things like this.
  3. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS says that: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.". I'm sure it's clear to everyone here that the "newcomers" (such as myself) are pretty much unanimous in wanting some kind of choice between the two original titles, and rejecting the current title. It should be abundantly clear that the prior local-consensus isn't a binding matter. At the very least, the wider community deserves a say in the matter.

In light of those things - I don't see how the four Oppose !voters can substantiate their positions and I ask that they address WP:CCC, WP:OWN and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in justifying their positions. If they cannot adequately do so, then I respectfully request that they withdraw their opposition to the arbitration proposal, above.

SteveBaker (talk) 15:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

We have. The fact that you chose to ignore the reasons beyond that it had consensus beforehand are shown in the way you skewed this summary.∞陣内Jinnai 15:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Own doesn't apply, as no one is suggesting ownership. This is an obvious case of forum shopping as proven above. Consensus can change is obviously true. However, no consensus has been reached to make this change. So, we're left with the previous consensus. That's basic policy. It seems odd and hyppocritical to suggest that consensus can change, and therefore we need a binding arbitration which would consider almost any possible name change request as disruptive, when the people who came to the last decision (after long, long rangling) consider this attempt to be disruptive. There is simply no policy based reason to object to the current name, and there is no consensus to change it.LedRush (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps I have misunderstood or misread your earlier responses - if so, I apologize, it is my inadequacy. I don't see where you say that the past consensus must stand despite what is written in WP:CCC and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS - why precisely do neither of those two policies apply here and now to this article? The only reason I have seen is that established editors have made this decision - and that's an argument that's easily dismissed by the policies of WP:OWN and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Since the sole reason given for opposing this proposal is that the previous consensus is somehow binding (See WP:NBD - no binding decisions) - and considering that you are now in the minority (which is currently six !votes in favor and four !votes against) - I think it's important that you be quite clear on why this matter may not now be re-debated in front of a larger/wider audience.
I would remind you that (per WP:Consensus) "Many of these broader discussions will involve polls of one sort or another, but polls should always be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. Consensus is ultimately determined by the quality of the arguments given for and against an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, not by a simple counted majority." - right now, the sole counter-argument to this proposal is that of existing consensus somehow overriding new discussions - and 'as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy', that argument holds no water. As such, the four Oppose votes don't really contribute to consensus. I'd like you to clearly explain why these policies don't apply here - and if you cannot, I respectfully request that you withdraw your opposition to my proposal for arbitration. SteveBaker (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, because no policy based reason has been given (with logical substantiation), I respectfully request that the support votes withdraw their opposition to the current title.LedRush (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

We really don't need a reason to oppose the current title and to obtain consensus to change it. We could simply dislike the title for aesthetic reasons - it doesn't matter. The Oppose !votes for this proposal state only that we can't change the name again because this change has consensus. All four opposers said essentially the same thing. Now, as it happens, I believe that the supporters of my proposal are arguing from the standpoint of the policies outlined in WP:TITLE - and that is the "policy based reason" behind the desire to get rid of the current title and arbitrate a better one. However, they don't have to have a policy-supported reason to wish to arbitrate between the two titles that I suggest. But if your only counter-arguments to the proposal to arbitrate are that of prior consensus then I don't believe you have a leg to stand on. SteveBaker (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
That is not true. If you need me to cut and paste the reasons that the current title is suitable, I can. But seeing as this has been discussed ad nauseum, I don't see what you're trying to accomplish with your condescending straw man.LedRush (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing here that violates WP:LOCALCONCENSUS, specifically because those who wish to change have failed to show how this violated WP:AND and how any of the alternate titles are better. Indeed outside of Minemare and those who fequent AT and 2 editors on WP:VG, no one has complained. At the same time, editors who came because of the previous move requests from a broader range, a couple more people from VG and even editors at AT have agreed that the wording at AND does not clearly disallow this, especially given that the Genesis/Mega Drive are not the same. They have different shells, different games, different marketing schemes (beyond simple name change), different histories and different impacts on society. It's not that you have conensus for change, its that you lack consensus to change. No conensus means defacto status quo for the time, let things rest, possibly try to find other info or discuss alternatives (such as revising AND). No consensus =/= a chance to change something.
Also I do find it ironic that SteveBaker and others trumpet this binding arbitration promoting CCC in their cause when they come, but dismiss that it any potential without an extreme hurdle to overcome in the future. It seems disingenuous that those who would trumpted that would also seek to deny that and deny there is a consensus for the current title that doesn't violate AT or any other Policy.
As for OWN, I think LeRush has already said what I think in better terms. No one has given any policy reason why this title cannot work. It doesn't violate AND and it meets just as many of the 5 criteria as any of the other suggestions.∞陣内Jinnai 15:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Not so. Your earlier decision to use the composite name was based on a purely local consensus - the people !voting on it were the original editors of the article. Subsequent exposure of the new name to the larger community has produce howls of outrage at the composite name and that has (IMHO) invalidated that earlier consensus (per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). I don't see how you can argue otherwise.
The issue of how WP:CCC applies to this proposal is a little tricky. Let me explain: If everyone here agrees to this binding arbitration - then we hope/presume that they will be honor-bound to defend the choice of title that would come out of it under the terms laid out above. In the future, if someone comes along and makes a proposal to change the title yet again, I would hope and expect that everyone who had signed up to this agreement would swoop in and defend the arbitrated title - no matter whether it is their preferred title or not. The consequence of that would be to prevent future individual attempts to change the title since there would be immediate, overwhelming consensus not to change it again. Certainly if enough new people joined the debate, then they could overturn that consensus (per WP:CCC) but it would be exceedingly difficult if all participants in this discussion had agreed to stand shoulder-to-shoulder to defend whatever comes out of arbitration. Making the arbitrated title "stick" would become a matter of the present editors having promised to uphold the results of arbitration - even if they disagreed with the actual choice. SteveBaker (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, if you argue that the title doesn't violate WP:AND because "They have different shells, different games, different marketing schemes (beyond simple name change), different histories and different impacts on society.", then how about the fact that pretty much every console EVER has different games, different marketing schemes, different histories, and different impacts on society in their respective regions. Many have different shells too, such as the Nes/Famicom (also different names), or Sega's own Master System. On the flip side, most of the games ARE the same (I'd wager a few are even like Super Metroid where the US and Japanese games are the same ROM, unless the name change prevents this, or at the least no noticeable differences outside of logos), and as said before there are MANY products that are the same thing but different 'shells' and names in other regions. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Because in those cases they are all still largely known (in English) by 1 name. A common name can be figured out by consensus with little to no discussion. Plain and simple. What I am discribing is no different than Pokemon Red and Blue which are virtually the same thing: same storyline, same pokemon database (you can only collect some in one and not the other, but that's no different than being able to play games in the Genesis, but not the Mega Drive and vise versa), same characters, same basic packaging (similar to shell), similar marketing. They are the same game and yet they are treated as a compound title per WP:AND.∞陣内Jinnai 18:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I'm rather startled by SteveBaker's assertion that "Those who oppose this measure are all long standing editors of this article". I've made 2 edits to the talk page and 0 edits to the article. Would you care to strike out that claim, Steve? Jakew (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm also not a long-standing editor here. I've done some edits from time-to-time in the past, but only recently started doing more seeing the sorry state of the article trying to improve it at least somewhat. Only since shortly before the move proposal have I become more active here. That's not long-standing.∞陣内Jinnai 16:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm new to the mix, myself, and I've made very few changes to the article, and those have been very minor. I want to get more involved, but since I've arrived my time is consumed with disruptive requests like this one for arbitration and the previous for another name change.LedRush (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand how anything on a talk page can inhibit anyone from editing the article. It's not like you can't just ignore it. And if you want to discuss something other than the title, create a new section and go for it! No one is to blame for how you choose to spend your time but you. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
It seems you've chosen to miss the point. The discussion is regarding whether the people who support/oppose the name change/mediation are long time/new editors to the article.LedRush (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Just like to ask a certain few editors to stop all this flavour-of-the-day pathetic whining about me "forum shopping". I started a discussion at WP:VG. Almost everyone (or absolutely everyone, I forget which) said the new title that was arrived at due to one of those editor's misinterpretation of policy was a bad one. That's not forum shopping, it's getting a wider and more healthy consensus than the cosy little group we normally get. Thinking that is somehow a bad thing smacks greatly of WP:OWN despite the outraged protestations at ownership suggestions above. Miremare 16:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the arbitration proposal is fine to use in three months if this title is objected to by unprovoked editors.--SexyKick 17:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I see several major problems with it:
  • The narrow requirement that the panel be allowed to choose only "Sega Genesis" or "Sega Mega Drive" as a title. Some editors (notably Steve) favour using one or other of those titles only, but that's not reason for me to support a proposal that includes such a requirement. It doesn't make much sense to hand the decision over to an external panel and say, "by the way, you're only allowed to give these decisions". What if the committee agree that an alternative title is needed. What if they agreed that the current title is the best suggested so far?
  • The draconian conditions imposed, both on editors who participate in this !vote and on third parties. These conditions go far beyond a normal WP:RM, and I'm not altogether sure that a small number of editors can make such a decision. I think we'd need very high levels of support at a minimum; we might need a WP:RFC or (more likely) a consensus at WP:AN.
  • Wikipedia already has a number of dispute resolution mechanisms, and the community have experience of enforcing the outcomes where necessary. Before inventing a new one, I'd prefer to see those at least attempted. Jakew (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I would be amenable to a modification to the proposal to say that if the arbitrators decide that neither of the two names are appropriate and if they have a better suggestion - then they should return to this talk page with that suggestion and seek consensus to use it. However, the whole point of this proposal is that we merely need to break the logjam between the two most acceptable titles. But that's an adjustment that I'd be prepared to add to the proposal if it would increase the number of people who would support it.
  • We could certainly discuss moderating the conditions imposed after arbitration - but since one of the primary concerns is to put an end to the 7 year old argument over this title, I think we need some 'teeth' to be added. What we don't want is a situation where the arbitrators choose title 'A' and all of the people who really wanted 'B' go right back to arguing for it again. Mostly what is required here is for existing editors to agree not to continue to fight this battle once arbitration has spoken.
  • I have looked into the various other dispute resolution systems - and none of them cover this situation. I can go into more details of that if you want - but in truth, there isn't anything.
SteveBaker (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Why should the requirement to seek consensus depend upon the proposed title? What you're proposing is a system that's inherently weighted in favour of the titles which you personally prefer, and against alternative titles that others (including myself) prefer. As such, my inclination is to oppose it. To make your proposal fair, we'd have to say that the panel would be required to seek consensus for their decision, whatever that decision may be. Or, alternatively, that they have the authority to make whatever decision they choose.
  • In terms of "teeth", I can understand that desire. It's clearly disruptive to have move discussions over and over again. But I think that to justify guarding and protecting a name through sanctions, you've got to make sure that: a) it's a really good name (ie., one fairly chosen, and with strong support from the community); and b) the sanctions themselves are fair and have the authority that comes from using the standard mechanisms of the community. These are of course strongly linked to my first and third points.
  • The Arbitration Committee "has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors", which seems an adequate fit. They generally prefer to consider user conduct issues, but I've seen several exceptions where they've been willing to take on issues that do not relate to conduct. It's certainly worth asking. Alternatively, the Administrator's Noticeboard is a good place to make proposals for sanctions.
My suggestion is this: first, ask WP:ARBCOM to intervene. If that fails (as it may well), reword point 2 so that it is not slanted towards any particular outcome. Then simplify if possible (hint: point 3 isn't needed given the presence of teeth) and make the revised proposal at WP:AN. If you do that, I'm not sure if I'll support it, but I won't oppose. Fair? Jakew (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Continued suggestions that only "unprovoked editors" or editors who "worked on the article" have weight in this discussion is clearly out of line with WP policy, and just plain impolite. Despite objections to the contrary, if you're arguing that people previously involved have a greater "say" than people who responded to a post on a notice board, then you're arguing against WP:OWN. In fact, the exact situation WP:OWN is intended to prevent is one or more editors getting entrenched on a particular decision and then resisting all change when outsiders point out a problem. APL (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Continued suggestions that only editors who have not "worked on the article" should have weight in an arbitration seems out of line with WP policy and just plain impolite.LedRush (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Seeking input from uninvolved editors is a very long-standing practice, where things have reached loggerheads. The idea is mentioned at Wikipedia:Consensus. My point in suggesting people outside the VG wikiproject (not just those editing this article) is that it would be a fresh look from people who have little to no investment in the subject. SamBC(talk) 22:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

My reason for objecting to the current title is quite simple - it's not an appropriate use of 'and'. The two subjects are not sufficiently distinct. Pokemon Red and Blue, but contrast, is the way the game is generally referred to (among one or two other common ways, like saying Red/Blue or Red/Blue/Yellow). People writing about the mega drive generally call it either one or the other, unless they are actually talking about the fact it ended up having two names. The difference between the consoles is almost entirely cosmetic, and the small technical differences seem largely to stem from the different technical standards of different markets. They're the same console in the same way that the SNES and Super Famicom are, or the NES and Famicom. To my eyes, a US SNES and a Japanese Super Famicom look vastly more different than any Mega Drive/Genesis pair one might find. This is why I find the current title to not be valid under WP:AND. Rather, it is two names for the same thing. SamBC(talk) 22:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

--  Like Excellent explanation for why arguments in favor of keeping the current title are untenable. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The SNES/Super Famicom fall under WP:ENGLISH clearly to the point that non-gamers who have edited article text consider Famicom jargon. As for Pokemon comparison, I'd beg to differ. There are a lot of instances when many may refer to a specific Pokemon game when referring to both and times when commentary will use Genesis and Mega Drive without commentary that they ended up with 2 different names. The technical differences between each pair of Pokemon games are largely for a marketing gimmick to get people to buy multiple games; the fundimental gameplay and storyline are the same. The differences are trivial. That's why the comparison is apt.∞陣内Jinnai 23:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
It's a notable gimmick though. The Pokemon franchise tends to make a big deal of releasing its games as a pair. They're meant to be understood as two halves of a whole. As a set. You're supposed to coordinate with your friends so that if you get one, they get the other. The difference between the two is very minimal, but the fact that they're released as a pair is an important part of that products' identity. The duality itself is part of the product's marketing. They are clearly a matching pair of products.
That's very different than having a single product badged differently in different regions. This is more like the Harry Potter and the Sorcerers'/Philosophers' Stone books. Different variants of the same product, with minor cosmetic differences between the two items, and of course, different names. APL (talk) 23:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Especially when English Mega Drive games run at 50hz, and Sega Genesis games run at 60hz...right?--SexyKick 00:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Isn't that a standard PAL/NTSC division?
Pokemon Red and Blue are two different versions meant to be sold in the same market.
Genesis is a rebadged version of the Megadrive sold in a different market.
WhisperToMe (talk) 01:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
The 50/60Hz distinction was true of every console of the time, is my understanding. I certainly remember the various interesting differences noticed when playing an imported US SNES. I don't know if it's still true of any modern consoles. SamBC(talk) 11:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, and all those consoles retained the same English name in both North America and EU markets, apart from the Sega Genesis and Mega Drive.--SexyKick 12:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
These kinds of very minor difference between the two variants don't warrant the 'and' title - we have car articles where two vehicles were sold under different names in different markets where the styling and functional differences were vastly greater than the tiny differences between these consoles. If the difference were large enough to warrant the 'and' title, then they'd also be great enough to warrant having two separate articles - and then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Minor styling differences between the cases is neither here nor there. The difference between 50Hz and 60Hz and PAL-A/PAL-B/PAL-C/NTSC/SECAM is something you see in every kind of console - we don't have separate articles for the PAL and NTSC versions of Xbox, for example. That fact they didn't run the exact same software is due to the differing screen resolutions you get between PAL and NTSC, 99.99% of the actual code making up the software would have been identical. Some game manufacturers might have decided that the likely market for (say) a PAL version of their game did not warrant the additional costs in marketing and play-testing - and simply not bothered to make that version. Issues of translating game text into other languages would also have played a part in that. None of this makes the two consoles 'different'...you see the exact same set of decisions playing out in a machine like the PS-3 where the hardware is essentially identical between all of the different markets. SteveBaker (talk) 12:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Beyond the above, the NTSC/PAL thing is pretty irrelevant when you consider that the Japanese and US consoles which DO have different names still aren't different in that respect. And in fact, despite the different design the SNES and Super Famicom are the exact same machine -- you can play SFam games in a SNES simply by removing some plastic preventing the cart from inserting normally. I don't know if the Megadrive/Genesis is the same, but I find it odd that people don't consider the fact that the Japanese Mega Drive even exists in some of these arguments (i.e. the fact that Japan uses NTSC makes the NTSC/PAL thing irrelevant). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
The Mega Drive/Genesis is indeed the same - the only region protection in 99% of games is the shape of the cartridge, though US and European Genesis/MD games are the same shape and completely interchangable, to the extent that games will run at either 50hz or 60hz depending on the console used. Some games with different regional names will even display a different title screen depending on the machine they are played on. Miremare 17:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
This YouTube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ck6hE2uCrPY shows that the Mega Drive WAS released in India. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Closed RM discussion

Latest comment: 13 years ago30 comments10 people in discussion
Close discussion from Oct 2011 RM - collapsed for compactness

Hello all. I was working through the backlog at Wikipedia:Requested moves and came across this discussion. I have taken it upon myself to close it. Please don't beat me to death. As there is no consensus to move the article at this time to a new name, I have closed the discussion, which is whirring around in ever-decreasing circles. I strongly suspect a request for comment might be the best way forward if a majority of users are still unhappy with the name. Me, as a complete neutral, would just go with whatever Sega themselves called the console in the country in which the console was developed, but I am not an expert in the area and have no interest in what the article is called.

There's no prejudice towards continuing the discussion below this, but I can't see it achieving a consensus without the more structured approach a formal Request for Comment would allow. If I have stepped way out of line, then I would also have no objection in undoing this close if a goodly number of users reasonably object to its end result. fish&karate 13:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I strongly object to your arbtrarily cutting off this discussion and picking the status quo as the result. This is an active discussion with a proposal on the table that is gradually gaining acceptance. There are issues with the previous consensus and the present title is in clear violation of WP:TITLE and should not be allowed to stand. I am removing your boxing of the discussion. SteveBaker (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
(further) At present, we have a 6:4 split on the proposal to seek arbitration for the title choice. Since then, one of the four opposers (User:SexyKick) has stated that the proposal would be acceptable after a delay of three months and another (User:Jakew) has come up with some reasonable 'tweaks' to the proposal that I think may make it acceptable to him too. The point about these debates is to win over support from the minority - and that's what's happening here. It's a live debate with a very real prospect of coming to an acceptable consensus conclusion. Cutting it off now will just make matters worse. SteveBaker (talk) 13:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
It's active, but it's not gradually gaining acceptance.∞陣内Jinnai 13:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes it is - User:SexyKick stated that this proposal would be acceptable after a three month delay - that is a valid suggestion that could result in further compromise. User:Jakew came up with his three objections to the proposal, all of which (I believe) could be accomodated in order to make an additional "Support" vote - taking us to 8:2. The remaining two objections appear to have no basis in Wikipedia policy and might yet be dismissed. I believe that consensus is yet possible provided a monkey wrench isn't thrown into the discussions. SteveBaker (talk) 13:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Well they do have a basis. That you choose to ignore that basis does not make it not true.∞陣内Jinnai 13:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Be that as it may - the point is that this discussion is going somewhere - there is room for adjustment and compromise and adjustments and compromises are in active progress. Cutting off the debate in order to advance a particular position is unacceptable when the that discussion is moving forwards in a direction opposed to that position. It stinks of "OMG! We're going to lose! Quick...end the discussion before that happens!"...not good...not acceptable. SteveBaker (talk) 13:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I believe the closing of the move request was proper. I will admit that the unprecedented arbitration suggestion is gaining momentum, but that is not the same as the move request. My biggest issues with it were:
  • It could not take into consideration the current name.
  • It is not the normal chain of dispute resolution, in fact it has no basis in the dispute resolution chain.
  • The binding proposal is placed in such a way that it would ignore CCC except if "new and overwhelming evidence" was found.∞陣内Jinnai 14:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
If one side appeals to a higher "authority" such as a noticeboard or an RFC to get the entire community's opinion, when previously the discussion was focused on one group, it's best to accept it and let the wider community decide. It does not look good to try to suppress it. If the position you advance is the best choice, the wider community will be in favor of it. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Surely the move request was redundant anyway as the discussion is now about arbitration? Miremare 17:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Another admin closed it. Before we go to arbitration, what I would like to see is a poll in which participants are asked to prioritize these three choices: Sega Genesis, Mega Drive, and Sega Genesis and Mega Drive. If we assigned points accordingly (2 points for first priority choice, 1 point for 2nd priority), we might find that there is consensus support for one of these three. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I think that could lead to misleading assumptions. I, for example, argued long and hard that if we follow CommonName, the Genesis is the clear correct name. However, I conceded that the current title is a good one, and certainly had the merit of meeting the common name criteria well and ending the seemingly endless bickering here. Obviously, a new batch of bickering has erupted, but I still believe that while the "Genesis" title is the best name, that the current title offers the best chance of long term harmony and also conforms to policy. However, this subtelty would be lost in the vote you describe.LedRush (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Really? Wouldn't you give Genesis first priority and the current title second priority, giving them 2 points and 1 point each respectively? That would seem to accurately reflect your view that "Genesis is the clear correct name, but the current title is good too". Contrast that with my view, which is "Genesis is the correct name, but at least Mega is not confusing and bad-precedent-setting like the current title", so I would give Genesis first and Mega 2nd (2 points and 1 point respectively). Combining just our input, we get Genesis at 4 points, and the current title and Mega each at 1 point. Isn't that a pretty fair assessment of our combined views? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think so. My first preference is to keep this name, even though it isn't my first choice, as the overwhelming, peace-making consensus that it is.LedRush (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Would be better to have propontents of each possible name: Sega Genesis, Mega Drive, Sega Genesis and Mega Drive and Sega 16-bit console write up the reasons. It's clear that each one has some kind of backing and merit which the supporters can use and it would not be a good idea to allow any one party (which may be slanted to a particular view) to write up the proposal if indeed the arbitration goes through. I'm still against it, but I also see the writing on the wall here, that is if you can find enough members.
I would be more willing to support it if in addition to not having people from the VG wikiproject, it did not have people who contribute a lot at AT therefore there is no bias either way and this title was added to the mix. It would be a reluctant support as I don't think its nessasary, but I'd not oppose it.∞陣内Jinnai 18:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Go for it. I created an outline for this below. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

What would the next step in normal dispute resolution be, though? I'm not the most familiar with all of the dispute resolution mechanism, but I can't think of anything that suits this terribly well. SamBC(talk) 18:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Informal mediation and then formal mediation and then a more widely publicized RfC. Since no one is edit warring, AN really isn't a part of the process. In fact there is nothing binding like this for pages at WP:DR, only indivisual users which is why I don't like it.∞陣内Jinnai 18:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I looked into that - and it seems to me that nothing short of intervention by Jimbo has the teeth and claws to do what we need here. What I have proposed is that the present editors would agree to be voluntarily bound by this agreement. What that would mean is that present arguments would cease in favor of the arbitrated title - but also, should a lone drive-by editor seek to overturn this choice (which in the past would have triggered yet another round of debate), the existing editors would (by their own personal agreement) stand as one against the proposal. That would cause it to fizzle rapidly rather than starting another debate. This proposal would have no actual teeth to it - it is intended rather to ask the present editors to unite against future move proposals and to create a nearly unanimous consensus to resist future move discussions without there being radically new evidence on the matter (which is astronomically unlikely, given that the console itself is no longer made or sold). SteveBaker (talk) 16:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Of course, that is what we've all already done. We've agreed on the current title and agreed to resist requests like this one to conduct another move discussion. Of course, this discussion makes the current move discussions ongoing for a few months, and after that last exhausting and (what was supposed to be final) compromise, many of the editors involved have moved on. That's too bad, because now we're at the point where people are looking to get the same type of result, only with the name that they favor, without any sense of irony.LedRush (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
The problem with what was done is that the proposal for the contrived compound title was not adequately considered and vetted before it was adopted. In particular, the arguments against it were not given fully considered, if they were considered at all. See the developing arguments below for how overwhelming the reasons are against using this title, relative to the other options, once they're all given adequate consideration. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
LedRush is correct in saying that the compromise title was designed to rebut further change requests - and probably would/will be successful in doing so when a single 'drive-by' editor comes along to try to start another move debate. My proposal to arbitrate would be no better and no worse at doing that. However, the compromise title isn't being attacked by a single editor - it's being attacked by a significant number of editors. Also, my proposal is deliberately set up to fail if significant new information about naming the article were to come along after the arbitration was settled - and that too is what happened here. What happened was that editors outside of the original group of compromisers noticed that the new compound title is in violation of WP:TITLE (yes, I know this is a disputed fact - but that IS the reason for all of this debate). So, if (after arbitration) some previously secret Sega marketing memorandum were to show up that would somehow magically resolve this dispute - then I'd certainly expect the arbitrated name to change.
Secondly LedRush believes that these new people are trying to find the name that they favor. That's not really true. Very few of the 'outside' editors here have expressed a preference for a particular title (most seem to agree that flipping a coin would be a perfectly acceptable resolution mechanism). The view of these 'new eyes' on the problem is only that the present compound title is unacceptable. There isn't a sense of irony here. We're simply pointing out that this solution to the thorny naming problem should never have been accepted or enacted - and seeking to put things back to where we can sensibly come to some solution as to the best name for the article. I've gone the extra mile of suggesting a means to choose between the two previous leading candidates - and offered some means to prevent further debate on the subject. But in truth, my main concern is not with what the article title ends up being - only that it should under no circumstances remain as it is now. I don't like being negative about things - hence my efforts to provide a way out of this mess.
SteveBaker (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Another observation: there seems to be near-irreconcilable differences as to where WP:TITLE is supportive of the current title or not. It seems to me this stems from a disagreement of fact as to whether the Mega Drive and Genesis were different consoles or not (or sufficiently different, I suppose). I don't think anyone is actually saying that WP:TITLE supports the idea that titling disputes should generally be resolved by using both titles with an 'and' in between them, though there is an argument that this usage may be seen as precedent that it can. SamBC(talk) 18:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It should be obvious to the most casual observer that the argument that Mega Drive and Genesis are sufficiently distinct to warrant a WP:AND title is blatant rationalization to justify use of this title. The evidence is overwhelming that it's a contrived title designed specifically to appease both sides in a disagreement, not because the facts suggested, much less warranted, its use. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
(comment about section below that was initially here has been slightly refactored and moved into a new Discussion subsection of that section) --Born2cycle (talk) 23:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I believe it is best to reason this by analogy with other article titles - things like cars have been used to show that even for things that have different names in different markets, which have exterior styling differences and even small internal mechanical/electronic differences, their combined articles are still named without resorting to "X and Y". The sole counter-example that keeps coming up (Pokemon Red and Blue) is an issue of contention here. It has been argued that:
  • It is not comparable because the two Pokemon products are much more different than the Genesis/MegaDrive are. (It's tough to compare the extent of difference in a software product with the size of change in a hardware product).
  • It is not comparable because the two Pokemon products were deliberately named differently for a strong creative reason - where the Genesis/MegaDrive thing came about because of a naming clash with another companies product in some markets.
  • The way the Pokemon article is named is a lone example - nobody (that I'm aware of) has found any others.
  • It is arguably also named incorrectly - and should not set a precedent.
  • Further reinforcing the dubious precedent that it sets is reason enough to fight not to use an 'and' title here.
SteveBaker (talk) 16:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Notice for closing admin

Collapse note which is no longer relevant since above RM discussion was closed.
This RM proposal discussion was closed on 10/20[5], arguably prematurely, because discussion was still active (and still is), and, so, it was reopened [6]. However, in the process of being re-opened, the RM tag was not restored, so the request has not been listed at WP:RM ever since. I just restored that tag[7].

Now, since the initial proposal to move this article to the compromise title of Genesis (Sega Mega Drive), it has become obvious that there is no consensus support for that particular title. However, consensus might be developing in the "non-binding straw poll" below[8] [9]. I, for one, expect the closing admin to focus on that area of the discussion (which is still very active, so not yet). --Born2cycle (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

You know, I realize many of us would have completely supported Sega Genesis (Mega Drive) instead.--SexyKick 21:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Which would be yet another case of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on this article being violently at odds with project-wide standards, since Wikipedia uses parentheses for WP:DISAMBIGUATION, not notation of alternate titles. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh, no wonder we went with and (even though I can still see it as a disambiguation from a certain point of view).--SexyKick 02:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Pro/con arguments regarding each proposed title

Latest comment: 13 years ago105 comments15 people in discussion
Pro's and Con's of various article titles - collapsed for compactness

NOTE: this section, summarizing the pro/con arguments for each title, is intended to be edited by anyone in a collaborative fashion like an article. Please treat it accordingly, including applying article-content-like expectations in terms of WP:NPOV and WP:RS.

For reference, these are the questions regarding the principal naming criteria provided at WP:AT to help us decide titles:

  • Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area 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 a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.
  • Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. (See § Precision and disambiguation, below.)
  • Concision – The title is not longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. (See § Concision, below.)
  • Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above. (See § Consistency, below.)

Mega Drive

Mega Drive WP:CRITERIA QnA

  • Recognizability – Is the candidate title a recognizable name or description of the topic? Yes, "Mega Drive" is a recognizable name of this console in much of the English speaking world, however it is not universally recognized as it still causes confusion for those who know it as "Sega Genesis".
  • Naturalness – What title(s) are readers most likely to look for in order to find the article? Which title(s) will editors most naturally use to link from other articles? Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English. There is no consensus on whether "Mega Drive" or "Sega Genesis" is the title readers are most likely to look for in order to find this article, but it is one of the two. Editors are also likely to link to this title, and it conveys what it is often called in English, though perhaps not usually.
  • Precision – How precise is the title under discussion? Consensus titles usually use names and terms that are precise (see below), but only as precise as necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously. This title is clearly precise, but no more precise than necessary to identify this topic..
  • Conciseness – Is the title concise or is it overly long? This title is concise and is not overly long.
  • Consistency – Does the proposed title follow the same pattern as those of similar articles? Somewhat. While this title does not follow the same pattern as those of very similar articles (other articles about Sega consoles follow the pattern [[Sega Name]]), it does follow the pattern of using only the console name for the title as some articles about non-Sega consoles do (e.g., Wii).

Mega Drive pro

  • Is the original Japanese name of the system.
  • The name "Mega Drive", used in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, and other territories, is the same as the Japanese version of the title, so it matches the command to "use English" and is a name used in multiple geographic regions, including its country of origin.
  • The argument is that it is the most country-neutral title, as in many regions (Europe/UK, Australia/NZ as well as Japan and some non-English speaking territories) it was sold under the name Mega Drive, with Canada and USA being the only exceptions, albeit major ones, especially in the English-speaking world.
  • The article has been named Mega Drive longer than any other alternative. 5 years prior to current compound name; August 2006-October 2011

Mega Drive con

  • Mega Drive appears less frequently than Genesis in an account of all of the reliable sources
  • Outside of the English countries it was released in (such as India), Genesis appears to be more common.
  • While the article was named Mega Drive for longer, it was not without continual attempts to move it to Sega Genesis or the like, always with very contentious keeps.

Sega Genesis

Sega Genesis WP:CRITERIA QnA

  • Recognizability – Is the candidate title a recognizable name or description of the topic? Yes, "Sega Genesis" is a recognizable name of this console in much of the English speaking world', however it is not universally recognized as it still causes confusion for those who know it as "Mega Drive".
  • Naturalness – What title(s) are readers most likely to look for in order to find the article? Which title(s) will editors most naturally use to link from other articles? Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English. There is no consensus on whether "Sega Genesis" or "Mega Drive" is the title readers are most likely to look for in order to find this article, but it is one of the two. Editors are also likely to link to this title, and it conveys what it is often called in English, though perhaps not usually.
  • Precision – How precise is the title under discussion? Consensus titles usually use names and terms that are precise (see below), but only as precise as necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously. This title is clearly precise, but no more precise than necessary to identify this topic..
  • Conciseness – Is the title concise or is it overly long? This title is as concise as possible given disambiguation considerations with Genesis.
  • Consistency – Does the proposed title follow the same pattern as those of similar articles? Yes. This title does follow the same pattern as those of similar articles (other articles about Sega consoles also follow the pattern [[Sega Name]]).

Sega Genesis pro

  • It is the most commonly used name in English sources to refer to this topic, so it meets WP:COMMONNAME better than any other candidate.
  • It is the first title used in Wikipedia for this topic back in November 2001 [10], and remained there for four years until September 2005. (then it was merged with the new Sega Mega Drive article, creating a compound name[11] for the article until August 2006). 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, apply the WP:RETAIN principle and use the product name which was first used as an article title in Wikipedia.
  • Is the name first introduced in an English-speaking country.
  • Is the name used for the majority of consoles sold (though sales figures are unreliable, and precise amounts cannot be considered 100% accurate).
  • 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 (Genesis comes before Mega Drive).
  • The argument is that it is the most country-neutral title, as it is the name used by the most reliable sources, regardless of country of origin.

Sega Genesis con

  • Using this title puts undue emphasis on the United States and Canada region at the expense of some other geographic regions; the reason why it appears the most often in sources is because the US and Canada have a very large population and are first world countries, so there is more press exposure towards the region, making the name "Genesis' appear more often in newspapers and online. Their earlier and larger uptake of the internet is also a factor.
  • As to the claim that Sega Genesis is more commonly used in sources, no account has been made for the large printed magazine market in Europe and the UK. The number of consumer magazines published in the UK alone is larger than the US. More video game magazines existed in the UK than in the US at the height of the Mega Drive's popularity.
  • Some editors dispute the claim that Genesis appears to be the common name in India because the google results show North American content from Youtube, Amazon and ebay as being of Indian origin when an Indian page links to them.

Sega Genesis and Mega Drive

Sega Genesis and Mega Drive WP:CRITERIA QnA

  • Recognizability – Is the candidate title a recognizable name or description of the topic? It is a combination of the two recognizable names.
  • Naturalness – What title(s) are readers most likely to look for in order to find the article? Which title(s) will editors most naturally use to link from other articles? Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English. "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive" is not a term readers are likely to use in order to find this article. Editors are also extremely unlikely to naturally link to this title, and it does not convey what this topic is ever called in English. However, it contains terms editors are likely to search for "Sega Genesis" and "Mega Drive".
  • Precision – How precise is the title under discussion? Consensus titles usually use names and terms that are precise (see below), but only as precise as necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously. Some believe combining two names in one title is unusual and confusing, and that that is not precise. Others suggest the combination of both names precisely defines the topic of this article to be about both..
  • Conciseness – Is the title concise or is it overly long? In one view: Yes this title is concise and not overly long. It could be reduced to Genesis and Mega Drive though. In another view: No, it could be both shorter and more concise by not stating both names for the same object.
  • Consistency – Does the proposed title follow the same pattern as those of similar articles? No. Other articles about Sega consoles follow the pattern [[Sega Name]]. Other articles about singular concepts that have multiple names do not typically combine both names in one title with an "and". A search for other articles which use "and" to link two nearly synonymous terms has turned up just one solid example "Hispanic and Latino Americans". In that case, the terms "Hispanic" and "Latino" are considered synonyms by some reliable sources and yet are hotly disputed in others - the "and" form of that title appears to have been chosen as a dispute-resolution mechanism, just as here - although without significant discussion of the issue on their talk page. It is exceedingly difficult to find other cases where an "and" title has been used to provide two names for the same entity throughout Wikipedia in general. To the contrary, it is almost universally the case that articles pick just one of the common names for an entity and redirect from the others. This is the case (for example) with all badge-engineered cars, cellphones, movies and books seen in different markets, plants and animals with multiple common names. Titles that use "and" generally denote two very different things (eg Fish and chips).

Sega Genesis and Mega Drive pro

  • While this title is not a name of the product, it is a combination of the two names it has had, which makes it recognizable, more recognizable than either "Sega Genesis" or "Mega Drive" in the sense that it will be recognizable to anyone who recognizes either name, while Sega Genesis and Mega Drive are respectively recognizable only to those who recognize each of the names.
  • While precendent may be against this, each article is unique and must ultimately be decided on a case-by-case basis. There are unique attributes about this article that none of the other examples brought up so far [dubious – discuss] (in previous discussions) share.
  • Editors of the page disagree about whether Mega Drive or Genesis is the most "common name", but both sides of that original dispute (overall) can live with this compromise title.
  • Certain editors believe the title is supported by the WP:AND clause of WP:TITLE as the two names refer to distinct products (which have at least as many different aspects as the average Pokemon dual cart game release, such as Pokemon Red and Blue).
  • Those who believe this is fine point out it is not the same as Yogurt and Yoghurt which is a mere spelling difference and would not undermine attempts to keep one spelling name consistancy for those things. They also believe this would not create a new precident for Famicom and Nintendo Entertainment System because the Famicom was never used in an English market.

Sega Genesis and Mega Drive con

  • The precedence for articles not to be named this way — e.g. all badge-engineered cars, cell phones, all plants and animals with multiple common names, many book and movie titles (such as in the Harry Potter series) — is overwhelming. Many of these examples (certainly cars and cell phones) are cases where the two or more products were sold with those names in different countries and with different superficial styling and minor internal differences... a situation essentially identical to this one in every relevant aspect. This title creates the precedent for titling articles in the confusing manner of combining two names for the topic with and. Such as Quercus kelloggii and California Black Oak, Volkswagen Golf and Rabbit, Football and soccer, Airplane and aeroplane, Yogurt and Yoghurt, New York City and New York, New York and Truck and Lorry. Please note in most of these examples the two names could be argued to be referring to slightly different entities that differ slightly to approximately the same degree that Sega Genesis and Mega Drive differ
  • As titles of articles about products in Wikipedia almost always reflect the name of the product, this title could mislead readers that the name of this console is "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive".
  • "Hispanic and Latino Americans" (and similar naming schemes) might not be the right name for those articles either.
  • Some argue that it is not a recognizable name of the topic (it's not even the name of the product, much less a recognizable name), it's not natural (it's contrived by WP editors, not what readers will type in to search for this topic), it's not precise (to the contrary, it's indefinite, really), it's not concise (redundantly refers to two names for the topic), and is not consistent with how any other articles are named, much less any similar articles.

Sega 16-bit console

Sega 16-bit console WP:CRITERIA QnA

  • Recognizability – Is the candidate title a recognizable name or description of the topic? No and yes. "Sega 16-bit console" is not a name of this console at all. It likely isn't recognizable to those who don't know what a bit is. However, it is a description of this topic.
  • Naturalness – What title(s) are readers most likely to look for in order to find the article? Which title(s) will editors most naturally use to link from other articles? Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English. "Sega 16-bit console" is not a term readers are likely to use in order to find this article. Editors are also extremely unlikely to naturally link to this title, and it does not convey what this topic has primarily been described in English (the term 16-bit console has been used to describe the consoles themselves, but not as a name).
  • Precision – How precise is the title under discussion? Consensus titles usually use names and terms that are precise (see below), but only as precise as necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously. It's precise from an editors' perspective (this is the only 16-bit console Sega ever produced) - but extremely imprecise from the perspective of a reader who does not already know that Sega didn't produce any other 16-bit consoles. If you came here to read about all of the various 16 bit consoles that Sega ever made, you'd be surprised to find instead an article about just the Genesis/MegaDrive.
  • Conciseness – Is the title concise or is it overly long? This title is not as concise as "Mega Drive" or "Sega Genesis", but it does not contain any unnecessary terms.
  • Consistency – Does the proposed title follow the same pattern as those of similar articles? No. This title does follow the same pattern as those of similar articles. Other articles about Sega consoles follow the pattern [[Sega Name]] (since "16-bit console" is not the name of this console, it does not follow this pattern). Nor does it follow the larger body of video game articles.

Sega 16-bit console pro

  • It is completely neutral.
  • The article already has multiple redirects[12] from numerous different forms of both console names. The chance of people not finding the article is very low.

Sega 16-bit console con

  • There is no support for this title at all in reliable sources. That is, reliable sources do not refer to this topic as "Sega 16-bit console".
  • The title inconsistent with precedent set by other similar articles and some argue that it is totally inconsistent with all naming policy and guidelines because it fails to answer any of the principal naming criteria questions better than "Sega Genesis" or "Mega Drive".

It is not a recognizable name of the topic (it's not even the name of the product, much less a recognizable name), it's not natural (it's contrived by WP editors, not a search term), it might be precise (is this the only 16-bit console from Sega?), it's not concise (other candidates are more concise), and is not consistent with how any other articles are named, much less how any similar articles are named.

  • It may confuse the average person who does not know what "16-bits" means as to whether they've come to the right article.

Another Neutral name

A neutral name to be decided upon by discussion and consensus.
(Similar idea to Sega 16-bit console above, but it proposes the idea of a neutral name without forcing anyone to back a particular name. Any neutral name would need to use non-judgmental wording to comply with WP:NPOV#Naming and WP:TITLE#Neutrality in article titles.)

A Neutral name pro

  • Will provide a chance for positive discussion between all parties on arriving at a new name. A collaborative process instead of an antagonistic one.
  • Will be completely neutral.
  • Ability to address the con points of Sega 16-bit console

A Neutral name con

  • Will not likely be a search term.
  • May confuse the reader as to whether they have come to the correct article.
  • It does not seem likely that there would be WP:RS to indicate that any other choice of name is commonly used to describe the product. The only two names we ever see in the literature are "Sega Genesis" and "Mega Drive".

Overall observations (PRELIMINARY)

This section especially should reflect statements for which there is consensus support. If you disagree, edit accordingly, but please be prepared to discuss and explain your disagreement below.

Note: while this whole section is a work in progress, so is this overall view subsection. Nothing here should be taken as a foregone conclusion, but just as an overall view that applies to the current state of the arguments. By having the preliminary view as part of the process, it can help bring attention to missing elements.

Discussion about pro/con arguments

Collapse discussion about arguments for compactness

The second bullet point under Sega Genesis con, it has a sentence that says "Additionally to the sources claim." I don't understand what this means or is trying to say. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I gave it a go. Hopefully I got it right. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, that's better. Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I tweaked the timeline reasoning with months. Also 2Cycle, is there a reason the Alphabetical thing isn't good there?--SexyKick 06:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Have tweaked the timeline up a year. It should have been 5 years. - X201 (talk) 08:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
lol I thought I had wrote 5 years. Total typo!--SexyKick 18:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added a rebuttal of the claim that Genesis appears to be the common name in India. I placed it directly under the claim and indented it, as that looked like the best position for it. - X201 (talk) 09:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

This thread is a non sequitur to this section. Feel free to it move up to the previous section where the !vote idea was discussed and uncollapse there
Severe Problem : Given the past history of this discussion, a !vote on the basis of these titles is going to produce exceedingly deceptive and unreliable results. The problem is that the existing editors each had a preference for (essentially) either "Sega Genesis" or "Mega Drive" and no other title. Given years of heated debate, they came to a compromise of "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive". Now, given this !vote, which way should (say) a "Mega Drive" proponent vote? If they vote for "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive" then they risk splitting the "Mega Drive" vote - resulting in "Sega Genesis" winning and naming this article with the one title they want the least. Conversely, they know that if everyone votes for the original title that they liked the best, then that destroys the compromise title that they'd like to keep to avoid future conflict. Worse still, there are a significant number of "outsider" editors (such as myself) who don't care at all whether they get "Sega Genesis" or "Mega Drive" - just so long as we don't get "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive" - so how should we !vote? If we choose either "Sega Genesis" or "Mega Drive" then we split the "Anything-except-'AND'" vote.
The problem here is that this !vote will provide no useful information on the real, underlying question here - and likely result in some quasi-random result depending on who tactically votes for which option. The real questions are:
  1. "Should the long-term editors of this article be allowed to choose the 'AND' title?" - if the answer is "Yes" - then we're done here.
  2. If the answer is "No" then: "How can we decide between 'Sega Genesis' and 'Mega Drive'?" - which are the only widely-supported choices.
  3. Having decided that, how do we make that change 'stick' so that the editors can get on with working on the article without continual name-change debates in the future.
In a sense, this debate isn't about which name should be chosen. But due to the need to vote tactically here, the results of any poll on this question would be worse than useless.
SteveBaker (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I thought the only people getting a vote were the panel of seven that you proposed selecting. Or have I missed something? - X201 (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
That would be true if my proposal to arbitrate this question were to achieve consensus - but that has not yet happened. I'm not sure where this thread is going, but I'm very sure that it misunderstands the nature of the question being debated. We cannot go through yet another round of "Should it be Sega Genesis or Mega Drive?" debate - because we know that there will never be consensus for either one of those titles on the grounds of which is best. Worse still, now people cannot express their true views without splitting up their !votes and inadvertently handing the title to their opposition. What we need is a way to choose between the original two titles that both sides of the original debate would agree to. SteveBaker (talk) 12:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand why you posted this concern here in this section, Steve. While your points are well taken, this summary of arguments is independent of the idea which you say has a "severe problem". I'm not sure where this is going either, but achieving a consensus on what all the pro/con arguments are for each of the names seems like it can only help, and can't hurt. I suggest you move this thread up to where it applies (feel free to delete this entire comment of mine in that process), because it's a distraction to this effort here. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering if the Sega 16-bit console may have been better listed as Neutral name to be decided upon or some-such. There are plenty of options that could work as a neutral name. - X201 (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Some of the con arguments might only apply to a particular wording. Feel free to add other suggestions to the list, and copy the pro/con arguments if they apply. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Have added it. Hopefully it will get a brainstorming session going about possible names. We need a bit of positivity.- X201 (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Well the other alternative, fourth-generation would not be neutral. First there are still questions as to whether the generation model was partially created by Wikipedia, but even ignoring that, there are disputing claims about what generation most Sega systmes, including this one belong in with different RSes saying different things.
So yes another neutral term is probably possible, just not one that uses a loaded term like that.∞陣内Jinnai 17:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
While I'm normally wide-open to the idea of seeking a more creative solution, the problem is that it does not seem likely that there would be WP:RS to indicate that any other choice of name is commonly used to describe the product. The only two names we ever see in the literature are "Sega Genesis" and "Mega Drive". So any conceivable 'neutral' name would necessarily violate WP:COMMONNAME and that would be the end of it. No new WP:RS's are likely to show up in future because the console is obsolete and nobody outside of encyclopedias and nostalgia sites are writing a whole lot about it anymore - and those places are obviously going to be using the two most-established names rather than establishing widely-used new names. Since absolutely any single name would be 100% guaranteed to fall into this trap, it does not seem particularly productive to look for more 'neutral' names. We know from many previous discussions that the only two names that are remotely applicable here are "Sega Genesis" and "Mega Drive".
It's not completely impossible that some fan-site would come up with a new name. Take, for example the fact that fans of the Austin-Healey Sprite and the MG Midget came up with the name "Spridget" to describe both cars. This name is seen all over the place in literature about the two cars. Under this kind of compromise, a hypothetical combined Sprite/Midget Wikipedia page might even arguably be named "Spridget" to settle a conflict. (That's actually unlikely to happen in that case because only the early model years of those two brand names were actually identical badge-engineered cars) But I guarantee that if those two articles were ever merged, that the article title would be "Austin-Healey Sprite" or "MG Midget" and not "Spridget" - and certainly not "Austin-Healey Sprite and MG Midget". Same deal here. If there was a compromise name for the Genesis/MegaDrive that was well represented in WP:RS and used widely when the console was new - then we'd already have known about it - and it would be mentioned right up there in the article lede (just as "Spridget" is). SteveBaker (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
That's only a compelling argument if you subscribe to the viewpoint that only common names are acceptable titles. That's certainly a point of view, but it's not the only one. Jakew (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
It's true that we're not required to use the most common name - but WP:COMMONNAME does say "When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others."...so yeah, if there are other names for this console that are/were in 'fairly common' use - then they are certainly candidates. But names that we might make up - or names that are only used very rarely - aren't acceptable to WP:TITLE. This is a matter of established policy and "point of view" doesn't enter into the debate. I find it hard to believe that some other "fairly common" name for this console would not have figured strongly in at least some of the previous debates on the topic - hence it seems unlikely that such a name exists with reliable sources and fairly common use. SteveBaker (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Not to pile on, but picking an article title is more than just WP:COMMONNAME. Finding the most common name is one consideration among many. In this case, where there are two prime common name candidates that editors have been unable to choose between, a neutral title is one option that can used, while still satisfying many of the criteria at WP:AT. In this case, just to use the one at issue, "Sega 16-bit console" is precise, fairly concise, and recognizable. It's been used before, out in the world. It's accurate. And most importantly, it's neutral. All these are things to weigh in this case. Dohn joe (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Indeed WP:COMMONNAME is only a part of title. It's generally the best way of deciding a name, but that doesn't mean it is the only' way.∞陣内Jinnai 20:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Before adding points to sections above, remember that is not a discussion section. Items are marked pro/con for a reason. Pro reasons go in pro-not counterpoints to pro. Vise versa for con. Also before adding more points, make certain there isn't something like it already there. This makes it look like there could be bias (intentional or not) by giving the appearance that one item has more pro/negative points than another.∞陣内Jinnai 21:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. And I would like to add that I think it's turning out quite nicely. It's not there yet, but I can see how, because of our combined efforts, someone totally new to this issue will soon be able to quickly understand what's going on here, without having to plow through archives. But that's why it's important we get all the points in here. In short, good job everybody! And I say that without having any idea where this is going to take us. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it's too early to have a summary section. The first point here, for example, is true at the moment; but what happens when someone adds two new pro comments to "Sega 16-bit console" (as I was thinking of doing)? The pro/con lists are still too much in flux to make anything concrete of. I'd remove this section until the dust settles there. Dohn joe (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The summary section should be updated to reflect the changing main section. It can help bring attention to potential missing elements. But I will add a preliminary tag to it. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
  Done I also added a PRELIMINARY tag, explanatory note, and changed the name to "Overall observations". Hope this helps. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the points on the naming criteria terms as with the exception of recognizably (already covered with the likely search term or not) and conciseness (if something is shorter its pretty obvious), its in the eye of the beholder what is "natural", what is "precise" and to some extent what is "consistent".
I also rewrote a lot of text to remove biased tones like "clearly" and "best", etc. I realize some may feel passionately about a name or passionately against a name, but that is not how you present an unbiased argument.∞陣内Jinnai 03:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't really understand a lot of your removals. Perhaps it would be good to clarify the point of this exercise; one of us is missing it. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I think he removed them because they were largely useless (we're talking about the consistency bullets, right?)--SexyKick 07:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
One point i removed as it wasn't in the appropriate section and didn't know where the person wanted it to go. It was also unnessasarily wordy and biased. I believe it has now been readded in a more consise manner in a more appropriate place (the part about India). Most of the others were rephasing to remove biased or leading terms such as "...is clearly the best...". We're designing this to be a neutral description of facts. That someone believes it to be the best is their opinion, not a fact. The last item is on the naming criteria. There are ways that most of those can be viewed so that one can be seen as being appropriate or better depending upon the angle with the exception of conciseness, a clearly objective measure, and recognizability (search terms).∞陣内Jinnai 16:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
EDIT: Since we're doing rebuttles now (India example), I added a rebuttle to the Yogurt type example.∞陣内Jinnai 16:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Jinnai, you say you "removed the points on the naming criteria terms as with the exception of recognizably (already covered with the likely search term or not) and conciseness (if something is shorter its pretty obvious), its in the eye of the beholder what is "natural", what is "precise" and to some extent what is "consistent"." These are well-known criteria for which there is broad consensus on what they mean in the context of choosing titles in WP. If you're not familiar with what they mean, I suggest you find out, instead of essentially dismissing the main part of WP:AT written precisely to aid us in matters like this. I'm going to restore those sections accordingly. They're very important. If you disagree with wording in them, then adjust the wording to something you agree is reasonable (after reading and understanding the whole WP:CRITERIA section - but please don't delete the whole thing, please. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually, they're not criteria, and they shouldn't be treated as such: they're questions to be considered during the consensus process. Furthermore, I disagree with your interpretation of how many of them apply. For example, I would argue that the current title is highly recognisable, more so than either "Sega Genesis" or "Mega Drive". I, for example, wouldn't have recognised "Sega Genesis" at all a couple of weeks ago, because I've never come into contact with that console. I would recognise "Mega Drive", because I'm vaguely familiar with that product. I imagine the same is true of most people who are fairly unfamiliar with the topic. So by including both in the title it is recognisable to roughly twice as many people as either product name. Naturalness? Well, given that the article is about both consoles, it seems perfectly natural to refer to them as "X and Y" (arguably people might not expect to find a compound article, but whether there should be one article or two is a separate question from titling). Similarly, it's a precise way to refer to the subject of the article. Is it concise? Reasonably so, yes. It could be more so, but at the cost of being recognisable to fewer people. Is the name consistent with other articles? Possibly not, but I don't know. I'm not sufficiently familiar with titles of articles about pairs of products to be able to say, and any examples given so far are likely chosen to support the person's point, and hence may not be representative. Jakew (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
With all respect, no one's personal interpretation of the terms "recognizable", "naturalness", "consistent", etc. and their opinions of how they might apply here are relevant. What is relevant are the specific questions asked at WP:CRITERIA. I suggest you look at those questions, answer them, and address the meanings of these terms as you apply them here with those answers in mind. That's what I tried to do. It's also why I included a copy of those questions at the top of the section; for easy reference. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
With equal respect, I have provided answers. See my response immediately above. Jakew (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, let's look at "naturalness". WP:CRITERIA suggests these questions: "What title(s) are readers most likely to look for in order to find the article? Which title(s) will editors most naturally use to link from other articles? Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English." And this is the entirety of what you say about naturalness: "Naturalness? Well, given that the article is about both consoles, it seems perfectly natural to refer to them as "X and Y" (arguably people might not expect to find a compound article, but whether there should be one article or two is a separate question from titling). " Sorry, but I don't see a connection here. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, so to rephrase, "what titles would readers and editors naturally use/refer/search for in relation to that topic". Before we can answer that, we have to ask what the topic is; that is, we must consider what the article is actually about. The article is actually about two closely-related consoles: the Mega Drive and the Genesis. So what title would a person naturally use to refer to that topic? "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive" seems a fairly natural way to refer to it. You've said above that "it's contrived by WP editors, not what readers will type in to search for this topic", but I think you're mistaken. It's not what readers would type in if they were searching for one of the individual consoles, but those are different topics (related, certainly, but not quite the same). "Sega Genesis", in contrast, would be a natural way to refer to an article about that console, but a less natural way to refer to an article about the Mega Drive or (as in the case of this article) an article about the pair. Having been surprised by the existence of Genesis recently myself, I think the "unexpectedness" of this article is not the title, but the existence of the other console. To summarise, the topic is possibly unexpected, but the title is a reasonably natural way to refer to such a topic. Jakew (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Why exactly do you think there are two consoles? Was there a discussion and I missed it? ButOnMethItIs (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Well they have different logos, different case designs, different marketing campaigns, and different sales figures, so it doesn't make logical sense to regard them as the same. They're similar (and I gather that functionally they're virtually identical), but they're still distinct from each other. Jakew (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Seriously? You're going to use that as an argument? Logo and case design, ok. But sales figures and marketing campaigns? How is that any different from, say, the PS2? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't know anything about the PS2. Was it sold under different names, too? Jakew (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Would it make all the difference if it were? Suppose it were called the Playcenter 2 in North America. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 19:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
The point is that it WASN'T sold under different names yet has "different marketing campaigns and and different sales figures" between regions. Such a thing isn't relevant at all, because it's a natural thing. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Not necessarily. If you sell the same product with the same name in multiple regions (assuming that the language is the same) then you could, in principle, run the same marketing campaign in those regions. But if the product sold in one region is unrecognisable in another (because of differences in logo, case design, etc), it essentially requires recreation of advertisements, etc. Hence the existence of one difference leads to other differences.
ButOnMethItIs, I think it would make a difference, yes. The name of a product — particularly when it produces a highly recognisable logo — is part of its identity. The hypothetical Playcenter 2 is a different product from the Playstation 2 in name at least, and probably the logo, so it looks different, too. In terms of the technology, it may make sense to treat them as one for the sake of writing an article, because discussing the tech twice would be redundant, but what about marketing, where brands and images are important? Does it make sense to merge discussion of the marketing of the PC2 in one market with that of the PS2 in another? A marketing person would probably view the two as very different products, and so to such a person that would probably seem rather artificial. Jakew (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I actually work in the video game industry - the idea that you'd be able to use the exact same marketting approach in a range of different markets would be surprising indeed. Almost all games have to be marketted differently in different countries. If you took the UK advert for a game, with a british accent narration, you'd have to get it re-narrated for the US market because british accents sound 'stuffy' to american ears. A more explicit example is that in Germany, it's illegal to show blood in computer games (yes, really!) so you have to have different versions of your game for that market that are blood-free (or draw green 'ectoplasm' instead of red 'blood') - and your TV and magazine adverts will be different for that reason if no other. Japanese kids like to think that they'll never lose at a game, in the UK, people want games that are a challenge - so again, you market the exact same item with a different 'spin' in those two markets. So the fact that this console was marketted differently in different markets is no surprise whatever and does not in any way add to the idea that these are different products. Names and logos are often different in different countries - for example, the Mitsubishi Starion was marketed as the "Conquest" in North America - same car, different name, different logo. Things like case/body styling also vary between markets - for all sorts of reasons. The business of Apple claiming intellectual property rights to cellphones with rounded corners resulted in several of their competitors using square corners for phones in the US market and rounded ones elsewhere. This kind of thing is completely routine practice - it doesn't in any way indicate that these were different products. SteveBaker (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

This appeared to be working quite well at the start, but now appears to have turned into an exercise in semantics, flowering-up a preferred candidate, whilst doing down a rival with a few choice words. - X201 (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

If you're referring to semantics about the terms used at WP:CRITERIA, the point of the questions there is clarify what those terms mean from a broad consensus perspective. But yeah, if you ignore the questions and just have everyone interpret those words without regard to the questions in a way that favors their desired outcome, you get a semantic rationalizing exercise. That's why the questions should be answered. In fact, we should probably do that explicitly for each candidate. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Those are things to be decided based on the facts of the case. What was added was his/her opinion based on those. The same person reading the same info (minus those opinion pieces) could come to a completely different conclusion. We have the little snippet from CRITERIA at the top. Anything more than that becomes biased opinion.∞陣内Jinnai 17:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
The whole point of the questions is to answer them. We can't use the questions if we don't answer them. Let's see if we can get consensus agreement on what the answers are for each candidate. What I have added is just a first cut. If you think these answers are biased or not based in facts, please fix them. Don't just delete these sections. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The thing about Mega Drive not being consistent isn't true. Looking at all video game consoles, you don't need to have the manufacturer name inserted before hand unless that's usually what the manufacturer did. Wii is a good example. Mega Drive is like that, but Sega Genesis isn't.--SexyKick 00:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough.   Done [13]. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Sexykick. Claiming that Genesis is 'more correct' on that basis is daft. - X201 (talk) 07:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Agree - if it came down to that criterion swinging the decision then we could go with "Sega Mega Drive" and still be OK on all the other criteria. The difficulty is still that there aren't enough differences between Sega Genesis and Mega Drive to choose between them. If we had a single golden rule that would allow us to agree between those two names then this entire debate would never have happened. The problem always was - and remains - not which name to choose - but to decide how choose between the two clear, almost equal, front-running candidates - and how to make that choice stick. SteveBaker (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, I kind of agree. Sega Mega Drive would solve the problem, but otherwise the Sega Genesis is simply a more consistent name. I also disagree about not having a single golden rule which gives us the answer. We do. It's called Commonname. If you read the words of it, it very simply and plainly says to go with the name with the majority of english language RSs. The problem is that some editors want to read into this guideline a need to discount RSs by geographic regions by some undetermined amount...a position supported neither by the language of the article or practice on WP. If we simply go by policy, this is not a hard case.LedRush (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Can you incorporate this into the answers for the Recognizability questions for each of the two, in a way in which the claim that SG is more common in english RSs is substantiated? That would help, I think. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Of course this, like most things on the topic, is hotly contested by a few editors. Basically, if you do searches of google scholar and google books (as suggested by commonname) you get significantly higher amounts of hits for Genesis on an apples to apples comparison. Quoted from above: Under google books, 'Sega Genesis' gets 6930 hits [14] and 'Sega "Mega Drive") gets 828 [15]. For google scholar, 'Sega Genesis' gets 2870 hits [16] and 'Sega "Mega Drive"' gets 287 hits [17]. That is an indication that RSs use the term Genesis 700% to 1000% more often than the Mega Drive. The results similarly favor the Genesis if you search for "'Sega Genesis'" against "'Sega Mega Drive'". A valid counterpoint made above says that the Mega Drive may appear in more magazines as the print media market is much more robust in the UK than the US. However, we do have scholarship based in books in my search results above, and those searches overwhelmingly favor the genesis. But because this methodology is so hotly contested, even though it is explicitly contemplated by commonname, it is unlikely that we can reach any consensus to include this in the above analysis.LedRush (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

A few points if I may, and feel free to split this post up by replying to individual parts if necessary.

  • Further to SexyKick's comment about "consistency", the idea is a total red herring - Sega didn't always "officially" add the name of the company to the name of their consoles, cf. Dreamcast and possibly Game Gear, despite that article's current title. The non-use of "Sega" is an odd thing to use as a "con", as we use "Mega Drive" (as opposed to "Sega Mega Drive") precisely because of consistency with other articles - naming them after their official names. So it depends entirely on which kind of consistency we're looking for or think is "best". You could equally say that Sega Genesis isn't consistent because it's not the machine's original name. We should scratch the consistency thing entirely IMO.
  • "Mega Drive appears less frequently than Genesis in an account of all of the reliable sources". That can't possibly mean all reliable sources, so can we have clarification? Does it mean the ones that Wikipedia editors have *chosen* to use as references in a Wikipedia article? If so, it's not really a relevant factor.
  • "While the article was named Mega Drive for longer, it was not without continual attempts to move it to Sega Genesis or the like, always with very contentious keeps." I understand that a lot of people seem to assume that there has been a constant state of thermonuclear war over the title of this article since the very beginning, and given the tone of this statement, clarification is desperately needed. Anyone can check the archives, but here's a summary: Since 2006 the page was moved just once, an uncontroversial move from "Sega Mega Drive" to "Mega Drive". But as far as actual move requests go, until this whole thing started recently, there was, wait for it, ONE serious move proposal, in July 2008, which returned a consensus not to move, with just one !vote agreeing with the proposal. When I say "serious" move proposal, there were also six very short discussions, all started by IPs, suggesting a move to Genesis with such reasoning as "this is the English Wikipedia" (twice) and "Sega is an American company", none of which got more than a few replies. This doesn't represent "continual attempts to move" or "very contentious keeps" at all, but a single move request in five years with a landslide consensus.
  • WP:COMMONNAME: It should be pointed out that both names, as we established a while back, get in the order of tens of millions of hits, or whatever relative numbers from whatever categories or sources or whatever. It's not exactly a 90/10 split or something.
  • "Sega Genesis pro" points 3 and 6 say the same thing - i.e. "call it Genesis because the article was called that first". A fair enough point, but we don't need to say it twice.
  • "The argument is that it is the most country-neutral title, as it [Genesis] is the name used by the most reliable sources, regardless of country of origin." That seems like an obviously untrue and unprovable statement to me, so how is it being backed up?
  • "Outside of the English countries it was released in (such as India), Genesis appears to be more common." Again very similar to the previous point, and also doesn't say how or why.

Overall, it would be nice to see sources to back up things in ALL the sections, so that the arbitrators know that what's being said to them is true, or at least has some merit as an argument. Miremare 22:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I have used the resources that Commonname directs me to use, not ones I've invented. When you deviate from Commonname and do a general search of google (as you indicate above), the Genesis still gets a significantly larger portion of the hits. (see [18] - either 49% more or 256% more, depending on the method.)LedRush (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the consistency comparison, I'm glad I said I found it be nonsense. I agree LedRush, that your search results in Google Books/Scholar presents fair, unbias evidence that Sega Genesis is the common reliable source term. I would think the Google hits comparison would be a separate point for the Pro list of Sega Genesis. Including the links in all these points would be a good idea. As far as I understand wp:commonname it's not about being country neutral, it's about choosing the common name. LedRush has been saying this all along.--SexyKick 00:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Is "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive" a recognizable name or description of this topic?

The question asked in WP:CRITERIA regarding "Recognizability' is: Is the candidate title a recognizable name or description of the topic? It seems quite obvious to me that the phrase "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive" is neither a name nor a description of the topic, but the statement to that effect has been reverted. [19].

It is an indisputable fact that the vast majority of the articles in WP have titles that are comprised entirely of the name of the topic. The chief exceptions are when the name requires disambiguation, or when the topic has no name because the topic has been contrived for Wikipedia, in which case a description is used, as in List of sovereign states. This is what "recognizable name or description of the topic" is referring to. Sega Genesis and Mega Drive clearly qualify as "recognizable names", and Sega 16 bit console is a description, but it seems quite obvious to me that "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive" is neither.

Unless a consensus-supported explanation for how this statement is dubious is provided, I'm going to restore the statement. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm utterly perplexed by your assertion that it isn't a description of the topic. When describing a compound topic, it's perfectly valid — and often best — to use the proper nouns that identify the individual items. I'm struggling to think of a more descriptive title for an article about the Sega Genesis and Mega Drive than "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive". Jakew (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
And I'm utterly perplexed by your perception that "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive" is a description of the topic of this article. Taking two names for a topic, and joining them with an "and", does not a description make. A description accounts in words at least some relevant characteristics of a topic. Specifying the two names by which something is called is not a description of that something. If your console was stolen and the police asked for a description, would "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive" spring to mind? LOL! Again, "Sega 16 bit console" is a description, because it tells us something about the topic, it describes the topic - it tells us it's a 16 bit console made by Sega. "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive" describes nothing about the topic; it merely informs us of the two names by which it is known - that's not a description.

Pokémon Red and Blue, by the way, is not a description of that article's topic either. Rather, it is the name commonly used to refer to the topic of that article.

I should note that the argument that "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive" is a name for this topic is not entirely without merit (it's just not very commonly used and therefore not very recognizable as a name). But that it is a description of the topic? No way. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I've solicited input on the general question here at WT:AT. [20]. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Hypothetically speaking, if I owned both a Genesis and a Mega Drive, and if they were stolen, wouldn't "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive" be a satisfactory description of what was stolen? Similarly, fish and chips is a description of the dish, identifying its principal ingredients. Jakew (talk) 17:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
If you go into a gaming store and order a "Mega Drive" you will not get a "Sega Genesis" (as defined by this article) and similarly if you go in and ask for a "Genesis" you won't get a "Mega Drive".∞陣内Jinnai 17:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
What kind of Mega Drive will you get? Japanese or European? Which hardware revision? If you take this line of thinking to its logical conclusion, how long would the title actually be? ButOnMethItIs (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Depending on whether you order Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone or Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone you won't get the exact same thing either, and, yet, the latter redirects to the former, neither is a description of the topic of that article, and nor would Harry Potter And The Philosopher's Stone and Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone be a description of it. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
No, Jake. "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive" would not be a satisfactory description of what was stolen if your console was stolen - it would not be a description of what was stolen at all. Again, an account of the characteristics of something is what comprises a description. In this case a description comes from the lead: "a fourth-generation video game console released by Sega in Japan in 1988". --Born2cycle (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
True to a point. First, you still might get the other if you order one though its more likely the Philosopher's Stone than Sorcerer's Stone (thus why it redirects). Second, it doesn't affect anything beyond the book itself. Getting the US version won't affect what other books in the series you will need to get. Getting the Genesis will affect what games you can play for it, what periphrasis you can, etc and vise versa for Mega Drive.∞陣内Jinnai 18:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
What nits we pick! In the years that the Golf was marketed as a Rabbit by Volkswagen in North America, other things were affected too, including compatible parts (Golfs in KM/H, Rabbits in MPH, different head lights, etc.), but those nit-picky differences doesn't mean the topic of that article is described by Volkswagen Golf and Rabbit.

I still see no explanation for how "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive" is a description of this topic. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we must have a very different sense of what constitutes a description, B2C. If a name (whether a brand name or otherwise) is well-known, it's often sufficient to describe an example of a product, because it conveys an adequate amount of information about it: "it is a Ford Fiesta", "it is a brick", etc. More to the point, if one wishes to describe a set of two or more products, the names of those products are often adequate as a description. For example, a "chip" (in the fish and chip sense) is a British term for a deep fried potato with a rectangular cross-section, but it is not necessary to include such a long-winded definition in the phrase "fish and chips": the term is both a name and a description of its constituent ingredients. A person unfamiliar with the term "chip" might find it an inadequate description, but it's still a description. Jakew (talk) 18:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, in certain contexts, of course names can be descriptions. "Q: Who was at the party? A: Peter, Paul and Mary". But we're discussing what "description" means in the rather specific context of Wikipedia titles, especially with regard to the phrase used for the recognizability question at WP:CRITERIA which specifically distinguishes names from descriptions. To argue that "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive" is a description of the topic of this article is to interpret the term "description" in a manner that was clearly not intended by the wording at WP:CRITERIA. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that the sentence in question is intended to clarify that the title should indicate, in a recognisable way, the topic of the article. Don't you agree? Jakew (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
No. If that were true, then we would use much more descriptive text in titles of articles about relatively obscure topics, and we don't. Putting aside ambiguity issues (as they don't apply here anyway), what it means is when the topic has a name (or names), we should use the most recognizable name for the title - descriptions are typically only used for titles of articles about topics that don't have names. I can't think of any exceptions to that, besides the current title of this article. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
To quote WP:AT: "An article title is a convenient label for the article, which distinguishes it from other articles. It need not be the name of the subject; many article titles are descriptions of the subject." Jakew (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Right, there are titles that are the names of the subject and there are titles that are descriptions of the subject. I can easily show any number of titles that are descriptions, but none for articles about topics that have names. Can you? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Opposition to the legalization of abortion (as opposed to "pro-life") springs immediately to mind, but I'm afraid I don't quite see where this discussion is going or indeed why the matter is relevant. Jakew (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Good one, and what an excellent example of a title that's bad precisely for not being the name of the topic. The point is it's highly unusual and generally discouraged except for good reason. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
It's not really a good example though because "Pro-life" is not a neutral point of view title - "Pro-choice" being a similarly POV option. Since NPOV is required in article titles, and both of the common names are decidedly POV, the editors there were forced to find an NPOV title - even though it doesn't meet WP:COMMONNAME as well as pro-life does. The choice between Sega Genesis and Mega Drive isn't a POV/NPOV issue. I think we can all agree that both names are perfectly and equally neutral. SteveBaker (talk) 19:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
as an editor which was deeply involved in the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" shennanigans, I can confirm that the reasoning behind the atrocious current name of those articles was POV (even though I think it's wrong). Also, I think that the name "Mega Drive" is POV as it implies that other drives aren't mega.LedRush (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Does Pokemon Red and Blue set a precedent for "and" titles in general?

Collapse relevant and fascinating but seemingly completed discussion about PR&B precedence; for compactness

I'm seeing only one example of another "and" title quoted by the supporters of the present article title (Pokemon Red and Blue). Is this a lone example - a freak that perhaps should also be corrected? Or is it a common practice in Wikipedia to name things this way? IMHO, it is the former. In fact, I see no other examples that have been brought forth. Examples where an "and" name was not chosen in similar or even identical situations are rife throughout this discussion and are easily found throughout the encyclopedia. Is this even a valid example? Is the situation with the pokemon game similar enough to the situation being discussed here to even warrant it being held up as a precedent.

If this is indeed a non-analogous, incorrect or singular, example - then surely we should discount it in all of the pro/con discussions above? SteveBaker (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

If it is a singular example, it should not be discounted. No analogy is perfect, so if it is not 100% analogous, that isn't necessarily an issue. Much discussion has centered around how good the analogy is. If the title is incorrect, then, yes, it should be discounted.LedRush (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
There is a strong push to move Girl gamer (a term mostly used by RSes) to Gender and video games (likely to happen at this point) even though no source uses that term and its primarly about women.∞陣内Jinnai 21:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't see the relevance here. "Gender" is an unrelated term to "Video Games" - so this is a "Fish and Chips" example. That discussion is, I'm sure, an interesting one - but it's not relevant here. SteveBaker (talk) 12:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately it's not the easiest thing to research due to the frequency of use of the word 'and'. The best Google search I could construct was 'allintitle:"and" site:en.wikipedia.org'. As one would expect, most of these are titles using established names that happen to include the word "and" (eg Foreign and Commonwealth Office). However, there are some obvious applications of WP:AND: HSL and HSV, W and Z bosons, possibly Eastern Bloc emigration and defection, and Hispanic and Latino Americans. While I've found many examples in which the terms combined with 'and' are the names of people, I haven't yet found any examples of product names. That doesn't imply that none exist, of course. Jakew (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Of the examples you found, I think that only Hispanic and Latino Americans is an analogous situation to ours. I'm pretty familiar with HSL and HSV - those are two quite different mathematical things that share a common purpose. The W and Z bosons are totally different particles that happen to be placed into the same "family" by physicists. "Emigration" and "defection" are two totally different means of getting out of one country and into another - again, somewhat related, but very different terms.
Reading back through the archives of Hispanic and Latino Americans, it does seem that the definitions of "Latino" and "Hispanic" are considered synonyms by some reliable sources, but hotly disputed terms amongst the community of spanish-descended south/central-american immigrants into the USA. This would suggest that they should have just picked one name and stuck with it - yet chose to use "and" to avoid that controversy. Pretty much the same thing as happened here. However, I see only a very brief naming dispute for that article in the archives of it's talk page - there wasn't much discussion - and the title has never been disputed. Their problem seemed to be that they needed to avoid confusion with the term "Latin Americans" - so "Latino Americans" wouldn't work. I don't understand why they didn't pick "Hispanic Americans" instead - but given the heated nature of the Latino/Hispanic labelling dispute, you could understand why not. IMHO, this is a much better precedent than Pokemon Red and Blue - but the very minimal nature of the decision-making process over on that page says to me that this is a weak choice and a poor precedent on which to base further article namings. Since we don't all agree that Pokemon Red and Blue is analogous here, I'm going to change the examples above to point to Hispanic and Latino Americans instead. SteveBaker (talk) 12:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Interestingly, I judged "Hispanic and Latino Americans" to be the least comparable to this article, finding (for example) "HSL and HSV" to be much more similar. I guess that's because of our different perspectives on this article: you see this article as about one product with two names, while I see it as about two closely-related but distinct products combined into one article for convenience. Anyway, I'm glad it was helpful. Jakew (talk) 13:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough - then may I suggest that you pick that article (or another if you prefer) to explain that viewpoint in the pro/con bullets above.
But the problem you have here is that there are hundreds - maybe thousands - of articles about things like cars where the exact same underlying machine was given a few superficial changes and marketed in different parts of the world with different names, different logos and different marketing approaches - and yet we did not use the "and" form of the name. Those analogies are exact fits for this situation - precise in every single way, right down to being in the same market sector (cellphones, laptops, etc). Your counter-examples are rough, approximate fits. It's very hard to argue whether two different mathematical descriptions for the color of light (that's what HSL and HSV are) are as similar to each other as these two video game consoles. It's a crappy analogy because you can't prove that their similarity is comparable to that of the Genesis/MegaDrive. That's the problem with the Pokemon example - it's a very poor analogy to compare two pieces of software with two game consoles.
However, it's much easier to compare to (say) two cellphones or two laptops or two cars that also have different "cases" (body styles) and subtly different electronics (mechanics) that were also marketed, named and badged differently in different parts of the world. Those are extremely close analogies and there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of them in Wikipedia. I'm sure that you can't find a single point of significant difference between those situations and this one.
When you use my more exact analogies - you find only articles that picked one of the common names and redirected from the others - and there are quite literally thousands of Wikipedia articles that are titled exactly like that. So by all means, reject the "Hispanic and Latino Americans" example - but then you must find a replacement that's as exact as (for example) the Volkswagen Golf/Rabbit example - and preferably, you should find dozens of such examples to counter the thousands that are clearly out there that don't use "and". Pokemon Red and Blue raises far too many points of difference to be a good analogy. It simply isn't convincing the majority of editors here. SteveBaker (talk) 14:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
The Pokemon naming situation bears almost nothing in common with this. Everywhere they were marketed, it was both of them together, not one or the other - it wasn't a case of the same game being released as Pokemon Blue in Europe and Pokemon Red in North America. The whole *point* of Pokemon is that there are two different versions, each including things that the other doesn't. They are intentionally complimentary companion pieces, and Nintendo want to con as many people as possible into buying both. Review aggregators like Metacritic and Game Rankings treat them as individual titles (complete with different ratings), and they appeared individually in sales charts at the time. The MD/Gen thing is simply a regional rename and nothing more. A more apt comparison would be to Star Fox (video game), which for trademark reasons was released as "Starwing" in one region - same game, different name, one article title. Miremare 22:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
No, for the reasons explained by Miremare, Pokemon Red and Blue does not set a precedent for "and" titles in general since the topic of that article is commonly referred to as "Pokemon Red and Blue" in reliable sources. Note that the topic of that article is not known as "Pokemon Red" or as "Pokemon Blue". In contrast, the topic of this article is known as "Mega Drive", and it's known as "Sega Genesis". Very different situations. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't matter one bit whether no RSes use Pokemon Red and Blue and every source used Sega Genesis and Mega Drive. WP:TITLE =/= only WP:COMMONNAME. PLAIN AND SIMPLE. This is the case of a contriversial subject, again plain and simple.∞陣内Jinnai 04:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
The usage of these names in RS does matter since some people here are trying to use Pokemon Red and Blue as a precedent for using "and" in this title, and that title is the most common name for the topic of that article. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
No, the Pokemon example isn't particularly relevant because the Pokemon games are meant to be understood as a matched set. Such sets are given "and" names on Wikipedia, but regional variants never are. APL (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Personally I've not read the Pokemon article and am unfamiliar with that subject. I just see this as a application of WP:AND to two closely-related but, nevertheless, different products. Jakew (talk) 08:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
B2C- you are the only one I've seen make the argument that RSes are what make the Pokemon articles fine. I don't see anyone else has mentioned anything on RSes like you have. We have made the argument that regardless of RSes, those are 2 closesly related subjects and an appropriate use of AND. You went and yourself looked for RSes and found some then came back and started twisting our arguments. None of us ever claimed RSes here use the term Sega Genesiss and Mega Drive as a description (although it could be out there) because it doesn't matter. AND allows for it as 2 closely linked subjects.∞陣内Jinnai 15:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Not sure why this is important to you, but I was not the only, nor even the first, one to note that the analogy to PR&B does not work because PR&B is how that topic is generally referred. For example:
  • "Pokemon Red and Blue, but [sic] contrast, is the way the game is generally referred to (among one or two other common ways, like saying Red/Blue or Red/Blue/Yellow)" -Sambc (talk · contribs)
RSs do support referring to the topic of the PR&B article as PR&B; RSs do not support referring to the topic of this article as SG&MD. The point is that if PR&B was not supported in RS, then there would probably be objection to that title too. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
And the point is it doesn't matter one bit. Bottom line. This is not a title that is being claimed under WP:COMMONNAME. PERIOD. It is being claimed under AND primarly with the secondary claim that it is also a descriptive title in a dispute resolution which has precident as has been shown here and at AT. This is an expectional case as its clearly contriversial not only from this discussion, but previous discussions back that up and as such it doesn't nessasary follow COMMONNAME because, unlike what you think COMMONNAME is not absolute.∞陣内Jinnai 17:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
If that's your argument, then let me just defeat it for you. The last sentence of WP:AND actually says "Avoid the use of "and" to combine concepts that are not commonly combined in reliable sources." - and indeed, your very own words: "None of us ever claimed RSes here use the term Sega Genesiss and Mega Drive as a description" - so if they are not found together in reliable sources (as you claim) then WP:AND doesn't apply. QED. But in any case, we have overwhelming precedent for articles that refer to closely related (but not identical) products with different names that share an article named for just one of them...not just one example, not ten but hundreds. SteveBaker (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
The trouble with that argument is that they are combined in RS. Googling for 'genesis AND "mega drive" -wikipedia' returns 23 news results (mostly referring to "Genesis/Mega Drive"), and 15 million plain Google hits, at least some of which will be reliable. Jakew (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Your search methods are broken. You have to put the names in quotes in order to get the number of times that phrase comes up - as opposed to web pages that simply have the words "Genesis" or "Mega Drive" anywhere within them in any order. If you search for "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive" -wikipedia - you're down to just 150,000 hits...which (to put it in context) is about the same number that I get when I search for my personal web site's URL - which is not notable and almost certainly not mentioned in any reliable sources! Compare the number of hits to "Sega genesis" -wikipedia which returns 13,600,000 hits and "Mega Drive" -wikipedia which returns 13,400,000 hits. The combined title is used (at best) about a half percent of the time. But I think the number is actually much lower than that. Many of those web sites are simply talking about the two separate machines in a sentence that happens to connect them with the word "and" - they aren't saying this in a context that implies that this is some common name by which these consoles are collectively known. For example, if I search for "For sale: sega genesis" or "For sale: mega drive", I get about 70,000 to 80,000 hits. But if I search for "For sale: sega genesis and mega drive", I get not one single hit because people aren't using that combined name as the name of the console - they are merely happening to mention the two names in one sentence. SteveBaker (talk) 20:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid you've misunderstood, Steve. I'm not particularly interested in finding the exact phrase "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive", hence I didn't include double quotes around that phrase (I did, however, include double quotes around "Mega Drive", since I'm uninterested in pages using both of those words unless they're in that exact form). What I'm looking for is pages that discuss both the Mega Drive and Genesis together, which was what my search was intended to find. Put another way, I'm looking for validation of the topic (do RS combine discussion of the Genesis and Mega Drive?), not the title (do they use this exact phrase to do so?). I agree, by the way, that 15 million is sure to be an overestimate, probably significantly so. But the objective is merely to show that some RS have discussed the two together.
In terms of your search for "For sale: sega genesis and mega drive", I'm not surprised you didn't find any results: it would seem unlikely that a person owned both consoles (given that they're sold in different geographical regions), and would want to sell both at the same time. Obviously people won't use the combined name to refer to a single specific example of one of the consoles; by analogy one could refer to us both as "Steve and Jake", but neither of us would refer to our individual selves as "Steve and Jake". I'm Jake, you're Steve: we know our own identities. Similarly, a given block of plastic and electronics is either a Genesis or a Mega Drive. It's never a Genesis and a Mega Drive. But just as an article can be written about both W and Z bosons, an article can also be written about the Genesis and the Mega Drive (if we were notable, one could be written about Steve and Jake, too). Jakew (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Except a better analogy here than "Steve & Jake" is "Steve & Mr. Baker". I'm sure Steve markets himself as Steve in some regions, and "Mr. Baker" in others, and there are differences. "Steve" typically wears T-Shirt and jeans while "Mr. Baker" usually wears a suit and tie. But of course the subject is one person. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
While humorous, you're not saying anything new and you're not convincing anyone to change their minds. Please end this discussion and let's move to whatever the next stage is (preferably a stage where everyone goes away...to dream...)LedRush (talk) 22:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I think we can only consider this discussion ended in an "agree to disagree" sense. People hold divergent opinions, both with justification, and people disagree over that justification. It's only ended if that end is 'inconclusive' and we agree that we can't say whether or not it's relevant. SamBC(talk) 14:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, no objective outsider has agreed with the view that PR&B sets a precedent for the use of "and" in a title that is relevant to this article. If true, that's highly suggestive, if not conclusive. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
FYI: Neither Steve, Stephen, S.J.Baker, Stephen John Baker (BSc,Kent), SJB or Mr Baker ever wears a tie. :-) SteveBaker (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sega_Genesis/Archive_14&oldid=1177403585"