Misplaced Pages

Talk:Sega Genesis: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:47, 2 October 2013 editRed Phoenix (talk | contribs)Administrators21,595 edits →USA-centrism: ANI note← Previous edit Revision as of 02:59, 2 October 2013 edit undo41.130.195.106 (talk) →USA-centrismNext edit →
Line 130: Line 130:


On the subject of accusations of "American bias", I have yet to see anyone actually give examples of bias, so simply slinging the term around isn't going to sway anyone. That is not how Misplaced Pages works; it works through sourcing and proof. Those who have actually ''read'' the article will see that though there is quite a bit of American coverage, notably because Sega of America's involvement had a huge influence on the Genesis/Mega Drive as a whole and its revolutions on video game sales (i.e. Sega of America CEO Tom Kalinske's razor and blades model), there is also quite a bit of coverage on Japan and Europe as well, as there should be. Could it be improved? Absolutely. Instead of bickering and accusing others of bias, though, why not ]? Be the change you want to see, don't just yell for it. It's a sad moment that the best argument I've heard about worldview bias came from arguments about ], with these comments ] and ], and those aren't even really good arguments, just a bunch of yelling and use of the term "yank bias". ] ]] 21:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC) On the subject of accusations of "American bias", I have yet to see anyone actually give examples of bias, so simply slinging the term around isn't going to sway anyone. That is not how Misplaced Pages works; it works through sourcing and proof. Those who have actually ''read'' the article will see that though there is quite a bit of American coverage, notably because Sega of America's involvement had a huge influence on the Genesis/Mega Drive as a whole and its revolutions on video game sales (i.e. Sega of America CEO Tom Kalinske's razor and blades model), there is also quite a bit of coverage on Japan and Europe as well, as there should be. Could it be improved? Absolutely. Instead of bickering and accusing others of bias, though, why not ]? Be the change you want to see, don't just yell for it. It's a sad moment that the best argument I've heard about worldview bias came from arguments about ], with these comments ] and ], and those aren't even really good arguments, just a bunch of yelling and use of the term "yank bias". ] ]] 21:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I propose we follow Red Phoenix's plan and get all non American users banned, this is sure to end the naming dispute once and for all ] (]) 02:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:59, 2 October 2013

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sega Genesis article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find video game sources: "Sega Genesis" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk
Former good articleSega Genesis was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 5, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
March 2, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
March 22, 2008Good article reassessmentNot listed
April 17, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
April 22, 2008Good article nomineeListed
July 5, 2010Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article
WikiProject iconVideo games: Sega C‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game
CThis article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
[REDACTED]
This article is supported by the Sega task force.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks
AfDs Merge discussions Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates Good article nominations DYK nominations Reviews and reassessments
Articles that need...
? view · edit Frequently asked questions
  1. What is the naming history of this article?
    • This article was started on November 30, 2001 under the name "Sega Genesis".
      Originally, the article covered only the North American console using the Genesis name.
      Coverage of the Mega Drive brand was added on February 17, 2002.
    • The article was split in 2003 into two separate articles: "Sega Megadrive" and "Sega Genesis".
      "Sega Megadrive" was created from a redirect, then renamed to "Sega Mega Drive" on August 21, 2004.
    • The two articles were later merged back into one in 2005, under the compound name "Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis".
      A set of editors discovered in 2006 that this title did not comply with Misplaced Pages guidelines regarding how titles should be formatted.
      At the time, a consensus decision was reached favoring "Mega Drive" over "Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis", largely due to it being the console's name at its initial launch in Japan.
    • The title "Mega Drive" was frequently contested between 2006 and 2011, resulting in numerous debates and discussions. Most of these discussions have resulted in approximately half of the editors favoring some form of "Mega Drive", and the other half favoring some form of "Sega Genesis".
    • In 2011, editors reached a compromise with the compound name "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive", in an attempt to give equal weight to both console names.
      Another discussion immediately followed this decision, in which a broad cross-section of WikiProject Video Games editors and editors with expertise in WP:TITLE policy expressed concern that this compound name was inconsistent with naming policy, guidelines and conventions.
      A straw poll was held in which several alternative names were considered. The two most-favored names at this time were "Sega Genesis" and "Mega Drive", with a majority favoring the Genesis title.
      This led to a new proposal to move the article to "Sega Genesis".
    • The article was renamed to "Sega Genesis" after the proposal succeeded , and has remained that way since.
  2. Why is the article's original, non-stub title important?
    Because of the following title policy statement at WP:TITLECHANGES:
    " has been unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub."
    That is, when two titles are both well-supported by relevant policies, guidelines and usage, we should favor the original title as a "tie-breaker".
  3. The title was "Mega Drive" for around five years. Doesn't that mean it was stable there?
    Yes and no. The article could be considered "stable", in that its name didn't actually change during that period. But the title was frequently contested, resulting in at least three major discussions and proposals on the matter. Many editors take this as a sign of instability.
    It's important to note that most of these discussions failed to reach a clear consensus either way - while there was no clear consensus to move to "Sega Genesis" or any other title at the time, there was also no clear consensus to remain at "Mega Drive". In fact, opinions were split approximately 50/50 between the two names throughout virtually all of the discussions during this period. By default, no action was taken.
  4. So why change it to "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive" (the compound name)?
    This name came about as an attempt to compromise with both sides of the ongoing dispute. In particular, the name was intended to give equal weight to both variants of the console, and was proposed in the hopes of drawing the dispute to a close.
    The editors participating in this discussion at the time comprised a relatively small group compared to the scope of previous discussions. Seeing little opposition to the proposal, the group changed the article's name.
  5. So then, why did the title change to "Sega Genesis" and not back to "Mega Drive"?
    As explained above, the discussion to move away from the compound name resulted first in a straw poll to decide on and narrow down the list of alternatives (which at the time showed "Sega Genesis" as the clear favorite), then a formal proposal for that name. "Mega Drive" was considered but ultimately rejected.
  6. So that means "Sega Genesis" is the current consensus, correct?
    That is correct. It stands as the most recent title to have been decided upon via a consensus discussion.
    There was another RM discussion in June 2013, which was closed as no consensus to move.
  7. Is the new title stable?
    Yes. Although the title is occasionally challenged, no serious policy-based arguments for a change that garner significant support have thus far been made.
  8. What are the main reasons editors have mentioned for favoring "Sega Genesis" over "Mega Drive"? (Note: These reflect the primary arguments made and are not necessarily true or verified.)
    • "Sega Genesis" was the original title of the article (see the timeline above). (WP:TITLECHANGES)
    • "Genesis" was the first name given to the console in English-speaking markets. (Naturalness criterion)
    • "Sega Genesis" is more "natural" and "recognizable" than "Mega Drive" in English-speaking markets. (WP:COMMONNAME)
    • Of all the consoles sold worldwide, roughly half of them were sold in North America under the Genesis name.
      • It is important to note that no firm sales figures have been established, and that this particular argument is heavily disputed.
    • The Genesis received more press coverage in North America than the Mega Drive did in any other part of the world. (WP:N, WP:RS)
    • The Genesis has particular notability over the Mega Drive due to: (WP:N)
      • The heated advertising war between Sega and Nintendo in the North American market; and
      • U.S. Congressional hearings into violent video games, with particular attention given to the Genesis release of Mortal Kombat and the Sega CD game Night Trap.
    • While "Mega Drive" was the original name of the console outside North America, it was used mostly in countries where English is not the primary language.
      • The vast majority of English-speaking users of the console are in North America, where the console was marketed with the "Genesis" name. (WP:ENGVAR)
  9. What are the main reasons editors have mentioned for favoring "Mega Drive" over "Sega Genesis"? (Again, these are editors' arguments and are not necessarily statements of fact.)
    • "Mega Drive" was the title of the console when it was first introduced in Japan.
    • "Mega Drive" is the name of the console in every geographic market except North America. (WP:COMMON)
      • The name "Genesis" was only given to the console in North America, and should be considered an exception.
    • Articles such as "Variations of the Mega Drive" exist that cover a broad range of topics related to the console's identity in regions outside North America.
      • To keep things consistent, those articles would also need to reflect the Sega Genesis name, which would make them inconsistent with their topics.
    • "Sega Genesis" puts undue weight on the North American version of the console. (WP:WEIGHT)
      • Sales figures are or should be irrelevant in discussions on a console's notability. (WP:N)
    • As of 2013, the title "Mega Drive" was used for the longest contiguous period of time (5 years). (Stability argument).
  10. Isn't it true that both "Mega Drive and "Sega Genesis" are perfectly acceptable titles for this article?
    Per Misplaced Pages's various policies, both of these titles are acceptable. The community generally agrees that both names for the console have roughly equal weight and notability for different reasons, but nevertheless the consensus favors "Sega Genesis" as the title for a number of reasons.
    "Sega Genesis" was favored in November 2011, though it was also generally recognized that the title "Mega Drive" would not be wrong.
  11. Why not consider periodically switching between the two titles?
    This idea was discussed and rejected in the 2011 discussions for a variety of reasons, including:
    Having the title change periodically would likely be confusing;
    This article is not unusual in that it covers a topic with two acceptable titles. (See Nintendo Entertainment System and TurboGrafx-16, two similar articles in which the console in question has multiple names in different markets.)
  12. Why would it be a waste of time to debate this topic again?
    Over the lifespan of this article, there have been at least six major debates over its title. The applicable policies and the availability of reliable sources haven't changed significantly over that time, so many of the debates end up coming down to the same general arguments, usually with no clear movement either direction.
    Per consensus policy, consensus decisions are not generally changed unless there is a compelling reason to do so (eg. when the name conflicts with other uses in Misplaced Pages, or when compelling arguments are made that actually result in a new consensus). Past history has shown that discussions on this topic in particular generally result in a stalemate.
    Many editors involved in these discussions, regardless of which side of the debate they're on, agree that the title of the article is not of great importance when compared to, among other things, the accuracy of the information in the article itself.
  13. Isn't this FAQ designed to shut down open discussion and debate on this topic? What if I have something new to say?
    The intent of this FAQ is to explain the history of this article's title, to give context to the surrounding controversy, and to explain (in a nutshell) how the community arrived at various decisions along the way. It is intended to explain what has already been discussed and debated so that future discussions don't have to repeat it unnecessarily.
    Editors who have participated in multiple instances of this debate have seen many of the same arguments brought up each time, usually verbatim from prior instances, and usually with the same results. Most of the WikiProject Video Games community would prefer to avoid seeing history repeat itself again.
    That said, if you do have something truly new to bring to the table, you are welcome to do so. But please cite relevant Misplaced Pages policies and reliable sources and be sure the issue is not already covered in this FAQ.
    In June of 2013 a near-unanimous consensus of participating editors agreed that, after a good-faith review of this FAQ, discussing the title issue without raising something new would be considered disruptive.
Notes
  1. While the compound title Hellmann's and Best Foods would seem to set a precedent for a compound title, it must be noted that those two products had truly distinct histories, while the Genesis and Mega Drive do not.
  2. P. Konrad Budziszewski, "Sega Genesis/Sega Mega Drive," in Mark J. P. Wolf, Encyclopedia of Video Games: The Culture, Technology, and Art of Gaming, ABC-CLIO, 2012, p. 559:
    • "The SEGA Mega Drive was a fourth-generation video game console. It was released in Japan on October 29, 1988; in North America (as SEGA Genesis) on August 14, 1989; and in Europe on November 30, 1990." The author thereafter refers to it as the "Genesis/Mega Drive."
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:

Archiving icon
Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24


This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Repairs I'm seeing needed

Apologies I haven't been around in the last few days; as I've said to some before, I work an abrasive schedule. Anyway, I'll be back on in a couple of days to edit the page, but let's talk article repair, shall we?

Regardless of your take on region naming, here's what I'm seeing needs fixed:

  • LOTS of unreliable sources. We need to use sources from WP:VG/S wherever possible, and fill in with better quality sources.
  • Lead does need a rewrite. Part of this will be dependent on the eventual outcome of the article, so this should be saved for last.
  • "Console wars" main article needs redirected to the main article History of video games, and segments on its discontinuation needs to be removed because that's better off for the "decline".
  • VRC section; should that lead into the section about Mortal Kombat, Night Trap, the US congressional hearings and the controversies in the UK Parliament? It's funny the controversies aren't covered better here; though it's not really a Genesis-exclusive issue, there's no denying how crucial it is to the history of the Genesis.
  • Should sales figures over the course of time be mentioned? At least in the decline they should be mentioned there; it gives an important comparison of how the Genesis performed against its competition, including the SNES.
  • Emulation is short, choppy, and full of useless cruft. How many of these emulators are actually noteworthy of mention aside from the fact that they exist? Combining it with information about plug-and-play devices that emulate Genesis hardware and the release of Genesis titles on newer consoles might be worth a mention in the same section, and all together with the "Legacy and revival" section, putting together one section about the survival of Genesis/Mega Drive games and software years after the system was discontinued.
  • Tech specs are a bit long and crufty, and appear to contain original research.
  • Peripherals section could be expanded, or a new section added, about the internet services Sega Channel and Sega Net Work System, and then those articles can be redirected to those sections.
  • Variations definitely needs expanded. I can see this comprising a couple of subsections, with maybe a sentence or two about each variation. Then, List of variations of the Mega Drive would also be obsolete, but that's okay because that list is full of cruft and OR, anyway.
  • Article could definitely use a reception section. Not only does it play into the console's legacy, but it helps to convey more about how the console was seen during its lifetime.

Thoughts? Red Phoenix remember the past... 03:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like this is going to be one of the longest articles of all time. x.x
  • What sources are we considering unreliable right now?
  • Emulation surely is crufty. Kega Fusion, and to a much lesser extent, Gens are the most used emulators right now.
  • Sega Channel I would think would be long enough and contain enough sources on its own to be its own article. I don't feel that is the case with the latter. Sega Channel had multiple exclusive games for instance, I don't know...
  • I would think (though I'm not an expert on this matter) that the List of variations of the Mega Drive would just be easier to rework and link to.
  • Reception I think just plays into Legacy and revival. There wasn't a Reception section in the SNES article until CaseyPenk just did this huge rework of the article. (and pending on what Anomie feels about it, we might revert all of that because such drastic changes to a featured article seem unwaranted)--SexyKick 00:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not sure it'll be that long. There is some expansion needed, but a lot of cruft also needs to be taken out in emulation and tech specs. Sources, I'd have to do a full source review as in featured article candidates, but from just skimming the list, I have my doubts about several of them... not the factual information itself, but the sources have to be reliable to establish credibility. As for the variations, I actually disagree that it'd be easier to rework the list because having read it several times, I feel that the list is crufty with excessive unnecessary detail and also contains original research (read the section on the Firecore? Saying it's "crudely" emulating Genesis software is pretty pointy.) I believe, though, that I can successfully work it into a couple of subsections (First and second models, alternate variations by third parties, and post-lifetime releases), with each subsection only taking a couple of paragraphs each. If desired, I can put this together in my sandbox in the next week or two to show a proof of concept. Red Phoenix remember the past... 12:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I do feel like the List of variations of the Mega Drive needs to be completely wiped and redone. The proof of concept idea would be an improvement to what's in there ATM.--SexyKick 12:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Still working on it, I had a rough week at work. I did, however, get rid of the emulation section by condensing it into Legacy and revival, and adding subsections to that part. I think it also makes more sense that way, as emulation of the system is really a matter of the system's legacy and later releases, too. Red Phoenix remember the past... 14:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose making this article overly lengthy by having details on each of the different variations of the Mega Drive, if you feel a specific variation is particularly noteworthy then it should have it's own article, but tbh I get the impression you are just trying to wind up proponents of the name Mega Drive who now only have one article/list without a gimped title77.97.141.75 (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm more of the disposition that if it could never be a featured list or a good article, it shouldn't be an article or list on Misplaced Pages. You're also forgetting List of Sega Mega Drive games, which I've said nothing about, and furthermore I've argued for Mega Drive before and honestly believe it is the better title. At this point, looking at repairs has nothing to do with the article name, except that removing bias in the article in the cleanup will help to better direct the naming debate if it fires up again; not to mention, of course, I'm a Sega enthusiast who wants good articles and not crap. Also, I'm not talking about having lots of details; if we wanted that, we'd redo List of variations of the Mega Drive, which is absolutely ridiculous and an original research dumping ground. If I can find some time to make that concept, you'd see that each variation really only has, in my concept, a sentence or two to it, and the entire section would be a couple of paragraphs total. That's all it really needs. Lastly, like I said I favor Mega Drive myself, but "gimped title", really? The problem's that we have two equally valid titles, and that's why this debate has raged since 2003. No reason to talk about the naming until the article could stand as a good article and meets all Misplaced Pages policies, especially WP:WORLDVIEW. Red Phoenix remember the past... 01:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Also, variations with their own articles already: Pioneer LaserActive, Amstrad Mega PC, Sega TeraDrive, Sega Nomad. LaserActive couldn't be merged in because it's quite a diverse system that ran both Mega Drive/Genesis, as well as TurboGrafx-16 and was an audiovisual system; Sega Nomad I think has enough as the successor to the Sega Game Gear to warrant its own article as well that needs rewritten. The two computers, I'm not sure on yet. Red Phoenix remember the past... 01:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Should be called Mega Drive

Please all see here for reasons as to why this has been removed - again. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

A brief challenge to two of the FAQ's arguments for "Sega Genesis"

All right, before I start with this, let me make something perfectly clear. Those who have been on this debate have known that I'm in total favor of consistency, whether or not it's "Sega Genesis" or "Mega Drive", and do slightly prefer Mega Drive myself but voiced support for maintaining the status quo in the previous RFC a couple of months ago. I'm not here to suggest the name change again without new argument, or any of that other stuff. Those who have seen my edit history have seen lately I've been away for a little while working on other pursuits, but I'm not gone from Misplaced Pages, not by a longshot.

Also, before I begin, I will say the latest edit war on this talk page is despicable. Why we have an IP editor continuing to sling that term "yank bias" and we're still seeing personal attacks is beyond me... but anyway, let's get away from that and to actual reason, shall we?

I understand that the following two points were simply listed as "common arguments" for Sega Genesis in the FAQ, but having done the writing for Sega CD and Sega 32X, I don't think that these two points are valid arguments. Let me break these down one at a time:

  • The Genesis received more press coverage in North America than the Mega Drive did in any other part of the world. (WP:N, WP:RS)

Are we really sure about that? I've seen quite a few European sources in my research, both past in time and retrospective. Period sources include MEGA, which was a UK publication devoted exclusively to the Mega Drive. Man!ac Magazine also did some publications in Germany on the Mega Drive, and who can forget Famitsu in Japan? Retrospective sources include Retro Gamer Magazine in the UK, as well as Eurogamer. The sources are out there, and I'm willing to bet there are many more "period" sources from that day that I know I don't know about because I'm not from, nor do I live, in Europe. However, can we really say it received more press coverage just because not all the press coverage is as available today? Bear in mind, we're looking at a console that debuted while the Internet was still developing into the behemoth it is today.

  • The Genesis has particular notability over the Mega Drive due to: (WP:N)
    • The heated advertising war between Sega and Nintendo in the North American market; and
    • U.S. Congressional hearings into violent video games, with particular attention given to the Genesis release of Mortal Kombat and the Sega CD game Night Trap.

Comically enough, the article talks a lot about advertising specifically in Europe, almost more so than it does in North America. Now, I do have some sources for some tricks that Tom Kalinske and Sega of America pulled to get retailers on board in America, but clearly the heavy influences of advertising in Europe, shown in the article, can't be denied. It's more likely to me that we simply can't show just how vicious either war was, which is part of why I advocate rewriting the whole console wars sections. Keep in mind as well that Sega has a "Sega of Europe" division and we don't have a lot of info in the article as to what was their marketing strategy, because we lack the sourcing that I'm sure exists. Now, before "burden of proof" gets stuffed on me here, I'm aware I'm not providing any more sourcing at the moment for this last aspect, but simply ask you to consider the point.

As for US congressional hearings, which I recall as the linchpin of KieferSkunk's argument... that's not exclusive to North America, either. Check this source out that I used in Sega CD here, and go to midway into the "Welcome to the Fantasy Zone" section. There were questions raised in the UK Parliament about Night Trap as well, which also makes it likely to have happened for Mortal Kombat, too.

If I had more time, I'm sure I'd be source-hunting for more, but for now this is all I have time for. Are these really valid points? Sorting out what is valid and what is not will help to clear this debate up in the future. Red Phoenix remember the past... 03:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Good points. I think it would also be useful if the FAQ was at least partially referenced. It currently throws around a lot of claims of consensus reached without pointing to the record of that consensus. Discussions here tend to go the same way - "We had consensus" "No we didn't" "The 'consensus' is just a manufactured end-run around the rules" etc. Having the history bit of the FAQ link to discussions / RFCs / straw polls etc would at least help people like me who are new to the debate to get their heads around it. GoldenRing (talk) 13:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Would add the (intended to be humorous) point that メガドライブ, claimed to be the original name in Japanese, in fact comes out of Google Translate as 'Rye Mega Cloth Sleeve'. Not sure if it's a comment on the build quality of the console or what. GoldenRing (talk) 13:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
For the Japanese, translations are a little rough because of the huge differences between Japanese and English. It's not so straightforward to just put something in a translator and get out what is intended. In a lot of cases, what you're actually seeing is that the title is romanized to actually read as if it's English... in this case, I'm not a Japanese expert but I believe the letters above are katakana and read "Me ga do ra i bu", or Mega Doraibu, which is about as roughly close as you can get to "Mega Drive" in Japanese using Japanese phonetics. It's not really a translation, per se, because of that and the way these titles were developed.
About referencing the FAQ, that would be a chore, but certainly not impossible. There's some 50 pages of archived talk page material to sort through. Red Phoenix remember the past... 21:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

These are definitely good challenges to the points up there, and I'm certainly open to getting new sources that prove contrary to the points as they were made. But I want to be clear on something about the FAQ: The section where both of those points came from specifically says these are common arguments on that side of the debate, NOT statements of fact. They reflect the arguments that were made in previous consensus discussions, whether or not there are equal-and-opposite arguments on the other side. In fact, I tried to be as clear as possible when drafting that part of the FAQ that they are not necessarily true statements, and the closing part of the FAQ tries to be clear about further discussion being welcome if there are new sources or policies to bring to the table. So, good on you for challenging those points with a call for new sources - I've seen others from the UK say that there was plenty of press coverage on the Mortal Kombat/Night Trap controversy there, so I definitely want to give those points due course. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware that they're merely common arguments, and even said so myself in my statement ;) However, I did not think anyone had brought the counterpoints to these to light just yet, even in all the RFCs, etc. Given that there's no telling when debate will begin again, I thought it best to go ahead and present the counterpoints so that they may help us to make an informed decision in the future. Red Phoenix remember the past... 04:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

USA-centrism

So it was Mega Drive in Japan, and also everywhere but the USA (and I guess Canada too, but whatever). That's not even most of the English speaking world. --Niemti (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Please reference the FAQ at the top of this talk page to find out why the page is at. In order for discussion to be restarted on the subject, new information that has not yet been discussed has to be brought to light. Otherwise, it is very likely that there will not be consensus for any move. Red Phoenix remember the past... 16:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I would also like it very much if people stopped accusing editors involved in this debate of being biased toward the USA. It's getting REALLY old, and it's going to result in ANI reports soon, since it has been such a prevalent problem. (See my warning above.) Instead of complaining about bias, why don't people actually try fixing the problems they see with it? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
BTW, in an effort to keep discussions on-topic, I've added an edit notice to this talk page to call more attention to the FAQ, and to specifically mention the disruption consensus. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
And that's why I'm glad we have an admin on this issue. Thanks, Kiefer. Red Phoenix remember the past... 19:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

We and not allowed to point out the blatant American bias throughout the article and the talk page, when we do they accuse us of being disruptive when their bias is the only thing holding this article back and has been for almost a decade, and when we raise the issue of bias they collude on each others talk pages and ban us, this article will never be fixed with the American editors and admins that relentlessly troll it and rig polls41.130.195.106 (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand. Just saying that this article is biased isn't helping. We've been asking you to bring new information to the table that refutes bias. Just simply complaining about it isn't going to get anything done, and it has been happening so much that it's gone well beyond the point where we can take it in good faith. Accusing us of rigging polls, trolling, and taking inappropriate administrative actions against editors doesn't help either. I don't know how much more simply I can put this: You are being disruptive by just accusing us of being biased when the established community as a whole has already agreed that the discussion isn't likely to move without new information. If you have new information, please, by all means, bring it. The fact that very few people have, so far, leads me to believe that the status quo is in fact correct, and therefore is NOT biased. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Also, if you really do believe that editors and admins are colluding against you and rigging the system, you are certainly more than welcome to take it to WP:ANI, WP:RFC/U or any of the other dispute-resolution systems, and even ask for formal admin review (you can certainly ask to have my actions reviewed if you want - I don't mind), and let people who aren't involved in this dispute take action if they feel it's necessary. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
One more comment, btw, since I know it's going to come up: I personally live in the United States, but have maintained for the entire time I've been involved in this dispute (what, five or six years now? I've lost track) that "Mega Drive" is the better title. I know there's at least one other US-based editor who feels the same way. The reason I don't keep arguing for it is because it's pretty obvious to me that consensus isn't going that direction, and there's little point in keeping on fighting over it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
(Insert) That's ironic Kiefer, because I'm an English editor, and live in Merry olde England - but I argue for the Genesis title. My arguments are all on here - mostly archived now - but my preference for Genesis is based on the fact that both are suitable titles, with nothing between them. So my allegience to "Genesis" is based on the arguments presented by others - not only the content of the argument, but the way in which it is presented and put forward. and I have to say that in this regard non-American editors are very often shameful and embarrassing. Witness the "arguments" put forward by a recent IP editor on my talk page. I really cannot see how any intelligent person will believe that such behaviour lends strength to their position and draw others to their banner. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
That's the main reason we (the more seasoned editors that the IP editor above was likely referring to) are getting to be more knee-jerk about this - the vast majority of the time, these accusations are literally baseless. They just say we're biased, they assert that we're showing our bias all over the place, etc., but they have yet to actually present any significant info that actually backs up the accusation. In a small handful of cases, editors have at least quoted passages from the existing article, and/or from earlier comments by other editors, that they believe is evidence of existing bias, but so far I haven't actually seen anything substantiated (and only a very small number of "I think I remember seeing" comments) that shows us that reliable sources would actually provide a larger world view than what we already have. (Which is also why I can't believe we're still discussing this topic so many years after it started - there's a reason this page is listed on Misplaced Pages's "Dumbest Arguments Ever" page.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

If you feel the argument is dumb please feel free to disappear from it, we won't miss you. As for your national bias I can point to the 1 day rigged poll you ran on the Mega CD page to rename it to the non notable yank name without other editors being aware and with out time to respond or refute the name change, it was just another snatch and grab on a name by you nationalist yanks92.238.252.159 (talk) 01:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

You know what? I've had enough of your derogatory remarks. You clearly don't understand anything about Misplaced Pages's policies on consensus, sourcing, and discussion. Your repeated use of the word "yank" in every comment you use also indicates to me a violation of WP:NPA. Please read my post below that I wrote; you could have done this the right way by bringing the necessary sourcing to the table, adding something new to the discussion, and not lambasting people with your slang. Instead, you've seen fit to continue to throw the same accusation over and over again, and refused to drop the stick. So, I'm not going to persist in arguing with you anymore. Instead, I'm going to turn this case over to WP:AN/I and have a neutral admin and experienced editors intervene. It's time you learned how to be respectful to your peers who edit and maintain this encyclopedia. Red Phoenix remember the past... 02:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm well aware of Misplaced Pages's policies on consensus, sourcing and discussion which is why I pointed out how kieferskunk avoided the process and rigged the name change on the Mega CD article and you running off for help from a yank admin just further proves nationalist yank collusion to keep the erroneous status quo and again if you don't want to discuss the current issues (yank bias) then please leave this talk page and article alone WE WILL NOT MISS YOU, YOU ARE THE PROBLEM 92.238.252.159 (talk) 02:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Excuse me? How did I rig the name change on Mega-CD? Virtually everyone agreed that that article's name should be kept in sync with this one (and if this article should change back to "Mega Drive", we'll happily change the CD article to match). I'm asking you to discuss the issue, but all you're doing is calling me a yank. I don't see how you think that's going to help anything. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I should note that I have taken this to Misplaced Pages:AN/I#Continued_personal_attacks_by_IP_user_92.238.252.159. Red Phoenix remember the past... 02:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

On the subject of accusations of "American bias", I have yet to see anyone actually give examples of bias, so simply slinging the term around isn't going to sway anyone. That is not how Misplaced Pages works; it works through sourcing and proof. Those who have actually read the article will see that though there is quite a bit of American coverage, notably because Sega of America's involvement had a huge influence on the Genesis/Mega Drive as a whole and its revolutions on video game sales (i.e. Sega of America CEO Tom Kalinske's razor and blades model), there is also quite a bit of coverage on Japan and Europe as well, as there should be. Could it be improved? Absolutely. Instead of bickering and accusing others of bias, though, why not expand the article with sourced coverage? Be the change you want to see, don't just yell for it. It's a sad moment that the best argument I've heard about worldview bias came from arguments about Sega CD, with these comments here and here, and those aren't even really good arguments, just a bunch of yelling and use of the term "yank bias". Red Phoenix remember the past... 21:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I propose we follow Red Phoenix's plan and get all non American users banned, this is sure to end the naming dispute once and for all 41.130.195.106 (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:Sega Genesis: Difference between revisions Add topic