Talk:Sega Genesis

Things

Ay up. I've been resisting the temptation of posting in this... well... frankly wacky discussion about this console for a while, but the sheer number of factural errors and dubious claims (not just in this article, but in that FAQ above and throughout the many, many talk pages) has convinced me to put out my view. I'm a frequent editor of the lovely Sega Retro wiki and so have obsessed over Sega-related stuff for few years now.

First, FAQ point 8

"Sega Genesis" is more "natural" and "recognizable" than "Mega Drive" in English-speaking markets"

You don't really know that, because with staggered release dates it's very difficult to judge the modern situation. We know, for example, that this console was released as the Mega Drive in India in the mid-90s (of which English is an officially recognised language) - how popular the console was is unknown, but there's the potential for hundreds of millions of English-spreaking people exposed to the name "Mega Drive". There's also modern issues - have more Americans been exposed to "Mega Drive" in the last few years than Europeans to "Genesis"? I don't know if anyone could make that call... so it's surprising somebody has.

"The Genesis received more press coverage in North America than the Mega Drive did in any other part of the world."

You don't know that either. More North American promotional material has survived over the course of twenty years, but I know for a fact there was extensive coverage of this system in the UK and there's a very real chance of this happening elsewhere. Also some of this older coverage between late 1988 and mid-1989 would have been covering the "Mega Drive" because the localised name wouldn't have been formed then. There were significantly more UK magazines covering the Mega Drive than in the US at the time. Circulation and reach might be a factor (though isn't that covered in the above?) but I wouldn't be surprised if there were more physical journalists whose job it was to cover the Mega Drive than those who covered the Genesis.

There's lots of awkward factors to all of this. Scanners cost less in the US, thus more scanning of documents happens. Video recorders and VHS cassettes cost less in the US, so more adverts have survived. But it doesn't mean people weren't exposed to the happenings of the console - Nintendo didn't compete very hard in a lot of these markets - there will be situations where the Mega Drive was recognised as the only video game console available to the public.

Secondly, the "stop discussing this name" thing - come on guys. Surely people should be able to come to this page and fight for change at any point in time - and you shouldn't really be worried about that. I don't think there's anything wrong about millions of polls - I guess if you tire of it... don't take part or something, idk. It might be wasteful and pointless, but a million times more friendly than just throwing discussions away and telling people to be quiet.

Personally I think the amount of requests to move it back to "Sega Mega Drive" probably suggestst that poll to move it to Genesis didn't last long enough or wasn't publicised properly. I don't think it really works if these sorts of pretty obvious changes are decided in a back-room somewhere. You need this stuff up in lights!

Alternatively, an update to the MediaWiki software which lets users switch between different forms of English, and thus different titles. Surely you could create something that automatically substitutes "color" for "colour" and vice versa - seems like the more ideal solution and not outside the realms of possibility... and you wouldn't need an entirely new language variant of Wikipedia either.

Thirdly there are general naming errors which mainly come from people not really reading things. There is officially no such thing as a "Genesis 2" - in North American markets it was always called "Sega Genesis" or "Genesis" and the name wasn't changed for the redesigned model. There's a "Genesis 3" which only aims to confuse, but no "Genesis 2". Any European/Australian models would be known as "Mega Drive II", not "Mega Drive 2".

Likewise there's no such thing as a "Sega Firecore" - "Firecore" is the name of the operating system, and the unit was manufactured by AtGames, not Sega (and distributed under tons of titles). And you must be more careful when discussing "PAL Mega Drives" - there are Asian PAL models which look very different to their European counterparts. And the PAL release date is totally wrong - you didn't have the modern "European release date" in 1990, you just had a "release period", where things would be available whenever retailers got the stock. Also it differed between countries - France got their Mega Drives after the UK for example -Black Squirrel 2 (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

First, RSs favor the name Genesis by a wide margin. This argues strongly against your first points. Also, as an aside, it is false to say the Mega Drive is the known name anywhere but NA. The machine didn't launch everywhere, and there is good evidence that the name Genesis was popularly used by RSs in places like India, despite the official launch of the name being Mega Drive.

Second, I think the point is that if you don't have new evidence or if there hasn't been a policy change, the discussions are more likely to be disruptive than useful.

Third, good to know. If you have the RSs to back this up, we should make the changes.LedRush (talk) 01:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

"First, RSs favor the name Genesis by a wide margin." - Nobody has ever provided reasonable evidence of this, yet it gets repeated ad nauseum. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 17:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I guess you weren't here the first time when this was conclusively proven. The only arguments against the empirical evidence were (1) the internet is biased; and (2) there's a ton of RSs that aren't on the internet and these overwhelmingly favor the Mega Drive. 1 is a stupid argument that doesn't deserve discussion, and no evidence has ever been found to support 2.LedRush (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

A Google Books search of "Sega Genesis" and "Sega Mega Drive" is not 'conclusive proof' for several reasons. First, it ignores the possible variations. Second, the number of results returned by Google is an estimate. Third, even flawed as they were, the results did not show a 'wide margin' as you said. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 15:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

No one said google books alone is conclusive proof, but your deliberate misinformation on the results demonstrates that you don't even want to discuss this honestly. See archives 13 and 14 if you actually care to know the facts.LedRush (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say it was the only evidence presented, it just strikes me as the closest thing to proof. What else has more weight, eBay? That's just sales again not RSs. Your own argument on straight Google hits? That was disproved, despite your refusal to believe it. At the end of the day, the fact that you prefer attacking me to supporting your case says it all. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 02:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, seriously, both of you. You've already seen that we have a consensus that this kind of debate is no longer productive and is therefore disruptive. Please knock it off. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

If people are going to use falsehoods to counter somebody's argument, I'm going to point it out, regardless of what the topic of conversation is. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 03:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

As consensus was reached on this point, and no counter evidence was provided other than the two arguments I've referenced above, I'd love to see any evidence that the consensus was "disproved".LedRush (talk) 12:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, let me put it more directly, Karl: You are violating WP:AGF and are continuing to argue a point that the community has already said is not adding anything new to the conversation. We don't have a strong consensus for either title, but we do have a strong consensus that continuing to argue about it with no new info is disruptive. Do we need to refer this to an admin board? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry what? How am I the one violating AGF? He's the one who attacked me. Additionally, I stand by my point. You can't shut down somebody else's argument with a falsehood and then when somebody points out the falsehood hide behind "we shouldn't be talking about this anyway". <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 07:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

What do you hope to gain by fighting with these people right now? (also an aside, as I did a search for the word falsehood to find the correct place to leave my comment, I think the results were pretty interesting)--SexyKick 09:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Fact-based discourse, the most important thing imo. Not sure what you're getting at with the search thing, if you object to the word I mean it as in something that is wrong but not a deliberate lie. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 14:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see any other way to interpret your repeated assertions that people are using "falsehoods" to assert and enforce consensus as anything but bad faith. It's getting tiresome. You can see that virtually everyone who's left more than one comment in this dispute has agreed that we're not going to get anywhere without new data, yet you seem hell-bent on continuing the discussion, and continuing to claim that the entire discussion should be considered invalid because of these "falsehoods". — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Well now you're just strawmanning me. I have not made repeated assertions, I have said that this one statement is a falsehood. I'd also like to mention I have no interest in continuing the title debate as you assert, I've long since given it up as a lost cause. What I haven't given up on is other editors' rights to present evidence without being shouted down by the local populace just because they're tired of talking about it. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 03:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

We're not just telling people to shut up because we're tired of hearing about it. SteveBaker told Black Squirrel very politely (despite your assertion of incivility) about the consensus we all had just reached, that we don't have a strong consensus either way about a title, that we weren't likely to make any progress either direction without new information, and that we would consider continued arguing about it disruptive when no new information is presented. Well-reasoned as his points were, Black Squirrel's argument did not bring anything new to the table - especially given how fresh the recent debate was.

What I'm accusing you of is taking every opportunity you can to keep this debate going, whether you're directly arguing your own points or accusing other editors of embracing "falsehoods" to get their way. Since I can't read what's going on in your mind, all I can figure is that you're being intentionally stubborn, and given the context, I doubt you would be anywhere near as stubborn about this had the article's title been changed.

And need I point out that if the title actually were "Mega Drive", there would probably STILL be people arguing about it? We'd still be trying to bring this dispute to a close, we would still very likely have come to the same conclusion that further debates without new info would be disruptive. Where would the falsehoods be then? Do you get the point now? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

1. Your comments are not adding anything new to the debate - all of your points have already been expressed, debated, countered, clearly, coherently, multiple times.
2. We have overwhelming consensus that without the emergence of dramatic, new, verifiable, information on the naming controversy (which we all agree is highly unlikely at this point), no new consensus will ever be formed.
3. We have overwhelming consensus that continuing to beat this dead horse is disrupting the general work of maintaining and improving this page.
4. Disruptive editing is a serious matter that gets people blocked and banned here at Wikipedia.

Probably, you were unaware of all of these things - so we give you the benefit of the doubt. I'm sure you don't want to be labelled "disruptive" and now that you know the current consensus, you'd be well advised to let the matter drop. You say:

"Secondly, the "stop discussing this name" thing - come on guys. Surely people should be able to come to this page and fight for change at any point in time - and you shouldn't really be worried about that. I don't think there's anything wrong about millions of polls - I guess if you tire of it... don't take part or something, idk. It might be wasteful and pointless, but a million times more friendly than just throwing discussions away and telling people to be quiet."

The reason we're not going to let this pointless behavior continue is that it is disruptive. When a new debate is opened, everyone has to jump in and dump the same set of tired old arguments into the thread. This causes hundreds of posts to this talk page - with absolutely zero possibility of forming a consensus to change the title. It's incredibly wasteful of everyone's time - so it is disruptive - incredibly disruptive. Pretty much everyone now agrees on that point. Telling people to "not take part" won't work because if the majority of the people here simply ignore the new debates that flare up then that just opens the door for a tiny minority to repeatedly overturn the name choice. That's what makes this so disruptive. The majority have to get into every stupid little discussion just to avoid this rapid ping-ponging of names.

So - make no mistake. There is near unanimous agreement that we consider continued re-opening of this point without substantively new arguments as WP:DISRUPT - and now that you've been told about that, further pushing of this will result in you facing disruptive editing charges. So just drop it - it's very, very over.

SteveBaker (talk) 02:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

"Disruptive editing is a serious matter that gets people blocked and banned here at Wikipedia." Do you think this doesn't apply to you? Perhaps you should read WP:CIV <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 03:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Please, do tell us what was uncivil about SteveBaker's response. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Really? I thought it would be obvious. It's the failure to assume good faith, the out of hand dismissal of everything Black Squirrel said as "not adding anything new" when in fact some of it is new, the threat of punishing somebody for getting involved in the discussion when as far as I can see he's never been involved before. As an aside I find his stance quite contradictory given he was the first to argue for moderation at Talk:Sega_Genesis#Poll:_Can_discussion_about_changing_title_be_productive.2C_or_is_it_disruptive.3F. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 03:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I was most certainly assuming good faith. I did not accuse the OP of disruptive editing - only that pushing it further would be disruptive. I did actually say "Probably, you were unaware of all of these things - so we give you the benefit of the doubt." - which explicitly assuming good faith by assuming that the poster was unaware that the near-unanimous consensus is that this is disruptive.

The "contradictory" post to the poll on this matter entailed me stating four situations in which I would not regard further discussion as disruptive. To quote my own words from that statement:

1. If they have a new and substantively different fact to add to the title debate that is overwhelmingly likely to produce a consensus -- this is useful and NOT DISRUPTIVE. However, if a reasonable number of people make it clear that they are not convinced by this new fact - then further pushing of it against a clear lack of consensus is definitely disruptive.
2. If they back off from pushing their POV after being clearly informed of the past history in this matter (eg by telling them to read the FAQ) -- then this is a simple lack of information which is NOT DISRUPTIVE unless it continues after fair warning.
3. If they wish to point out a policy/guideline change, a new ArbCom decision or a recent ProjectVideoGames ruling that substantively changes the choice of title that has come about since the last time we discussed it -- then this is useful and NOT DISRUPTIVE'.

In this case, we were in the realms of (1). I do not believe that there is a single "new and substantively different fact" in Black Squirrel's post. I very much doubt that anyone here, on either side of the debate, would agree that their minds have been changed by what was written there. I also very much doubt that anyone here thinks that what Black Squirrel said will change anyone else's mind either. Hence, this is yet another pointless discussion-starter - which we agree (by strong consensus) to be disruptive. I moved to make this clear to Black Squirrel - and warned that pushing it further is "definitely disruptive". That is in no way a contradiction with what I said before...to the contrary: I stated my position, most people seemed to agree with me - and now I'm acting on that. Having issued a clear warning per (1), we're now at (2) - where I'd expect Black Squirrel to understand that these arguments are considered to be disruptive and that (s)he should now back off and drop the argument. I recommend that you do the same.

SteveBaker (talk) 13:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that Point 8 in the FAQ, quoted in Black Squirrel's original post, is a collection of common arguments, not statements of fact. In other words, the "naturalness" argument about the Genesis has been frequently argued, whether or not the argument is actually a true statement. That portion of the FAQ is intended to inform people as to what arguments have been made on both sides of the debate so that, hopefully, people will stop repeating them ad nauseum. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thirdly there are general naming errors which mainly come from people not really reading things. There is officially no such thing as a "Genesis 2" - in North American markets it was always called "Sega Genesis" or "Genesis" and the name wasn't changed for the redesigned model. There's a "Genesis 3" which only aims to confuse, but no "Genesis 2". Any European/Australian models would be known as "Mega Drive II", not "Mega Drive 2".

^ That's incorrect, actually. Sources I used for Sega v. Accolade have shown that the second model of the Genesis was referred to as the "Genesis III" (and yes, that's three, not two, and I double-checked all of my sources to verify their accuracy). Printed on the Japanese Mega Drive picture we have is "Mega Drive 2", and the European one has "Mega Drive II" on it. Sega's naming consistency gets even more bizarre when you start reaching out to the Sega 32X, where there are four different names for the console depending on region (Japan, North America, Europe, and Brazil), and the project started as "Project Jupiter" and was going to be a "Genesis 2" as an all new console before being converted into an add-on, which also then became "Project Mars" instead... anybody following me? Here's the main idea: Sega's naming consistency just doesn't exist, but the names are out there and available. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 11:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Second model of the Genesis

All right, so there's been some confusion on the second model of the Genesis and what it's called. The Mega Drives each have numbers printed on them (Japan has "2", Europe has "II"). If you take a look at the sources for this article, there's evidence to suggest the second model of the Genesis in North America was called the "Genesis III", not to be confused with the "Genesis 3". Might this be what we want to refer to it as in the article? Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 11:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I've personally never seen a "Genesis III". The smaller, square-shaped unit that was 95% compatible with the first version was always still called the "Genesis" wherever I saw it. (The 95% compatible bit stems from the memory controller fix that broke a few games that had been exploiting the bugs in the first version.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's explicitly labeled as such, but it's fairly apparent from the court case that the redesigned Genesis was referred to as the "Genesis III" in at least some standard, by Sega. This is the official opinion given by the Ninth Circuit in Sega v. Accolade, and if you read the background, the court refers to the most recent version of the Genesis console as the "Genesis III", and it's worth noting that the court opinion was written in 1992. I'm not saying it's an absolute, but it's something to be considered if we're looking for a term specifically for the Genesis' second model, which also incorporated the famed Trademark Security System (TMSS). Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 16:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion: Variations of the Mega Drive

I'm officially proposing we merge the Variations article into this one. It's about time we did this, for the following reasons:

• The Variations article is largely unsourced and unreferenced.
• No independent notability has been established for the multiple versions that has not been covered by this article.
• Much of the information in the Variations article is, at best, trivial. I doubt it's very encyclopedic to note that there's a new shape to every console that one couldn't already discern from the pictures in the main article.
• Currently, the Variations section in the main article is quite short. A paragraph for each main model change (original, Mega Drive 2 (JP)/Mega Drive II (PAL)/Genesis III(NA), Genesis 3, Firecore, etc., there's really not a lot) I think would do the job in prose rather than a bulleted list, and I can find sources for each unit. See Sega CD#Models for an idea of how I would tackle this, as I did there.
• Recent knock-offs are likely not notable enough for entry here, anyway; those that are could go here in Variations or even with Emulation into a new combined section, "Emulation and reproductions"
• Would eliminate a lot of WP:OR that is in the Variations article.

About the only real problem I can see is that there would be a lot of complaints from the heavily-Mega Drive people that this is their last grip on the name Mega Drive as an article name, and I'm going to suggest that List of Sega Mega Drive games be moved for the same reason "Sega Mega-CD" is now at Sega CD. Thoughts? I think this article can be strengthened by the move, another poor one that won't get any better will be eliminated, and I'd be willing to make it happen with consensus. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support - As you say, consolidating it into a subsection of this article would be a great way to trim out all of the WP:OR or trivial unsourced bits. Great idea. Sergecross73 msg me 20:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks. If you've seen Sega CD, Sega 32X, and Sega v. Accolade lately, you'll know I'm on a mission to get all this cleaned up. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 20:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I have looked over them some. You've done very good work on them. I've thought at times it would be interesting to revamp some of these sorts of articles, but I always find that its too hard to find proper sources when the topic is largely rooted in the 1990s. So, good job on that. Sergecross73 msg me 20:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Its a valid content fork. There is no reason to merge all of that into this article. Its fine on its own. You'll probably just end up erasing 90% of it anyway. The game list article is 186,250 bytes. Surely you can't think you are going to merge that anywhere. No valid reason to merge either of these valid content forks. Dream Focus 20:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Per my reasons listed above, I would argue I do have a valid reason because of violations of WP:OR and WP:TRIVIA in the Variations article, which means it's not fine on its own because it's full of policy violations. While I do agree that it could be a valid content fork, that is not what I am contesting. I'm contesting that merging the content and getting rid of the trivia will improve the situation on the whole; a poor article without notability gets zapped and a developing main article gains more content in a section that it is sorely lacking. And yes, I would probably erase about 90% of it, but the 10% I keep would be what is notable, further benefitting the main article. You're still free to oppose, and I'm willing to accept that, but I just wanted you to know why I disagree with the content fork validity. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 20:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)There is a lot that needs to go from that article though. Seriously, almost all of the various bullet points should go. So many of are pointless factoids like :"AV INTELLIGENT TERMINAL HIGH GRADE MULTIPURPOSE USE" printed around circle on some models, omitted on others." or detailing the "color of the reset button" on every model. Sergecross73 msg me 20:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Weak Support Oppose w/ Alternative: On the one hand, I totally agree that as you're cleaning up the Variations article, less and less of it seems noteworthy enough to keep there. On the other hand, people have made valid points that, if you exclude the Sega first-party console releases (Genesis models 1 and 2, Genesis 3, Mega Drive equivalents of each), the vast majority of all the variations occurred in Mega Drive territories. It seems that combining them all here could cause a bit of pollution and confusion about WP:WEIGHT, especially given the article's current title. As an alternative, is there any reason we can't change Variations into a "List of" article? Just naming the variations that aren't notable enough on their own to warrant full articles or sections should work as a good compromise, methinks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support compromise: I support Kiefer's list idea. That should eliminate the original research, and keep the valid fork as it's a bit much, it would be a huge section in the main article.--SexyKick 22:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
    • If it's what is necessary to get this rectified, I will accept the list conversion and probably ramp it up to FLC at some point. However, I still disagree that this couldn't be simply merged over. I see it only taking a couple of paragraphs, as there's no need to get in-depth with the trivial factoids of every slight change between variations. It kind of sickens me that the article title is getting thrown in as a reason against this; we should be focusing on the content of the article instead of the constant tickytack issues of the name, and I don't think each variation really warrants more than one or two sentences about it in the main article. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 23:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
      • It's not that I have any intention of stirring up the coals on that dispute again - it's more a matter of general weight: How notable are those variations? Do they put undue weight on one side or the other? Personally, I think the first-party variations (Model 2, etc.) do belong in this article, but if we wanted to specifically mention any significant number of the third-party variations, they'd end up taking more room and drawing more attention than just a couple of paragraphs - they'd look more like a list, and at that point we might as well have a separate list. (If we decided to pare it down to just one or two examples, then I imagine there'd be a fair amount of research, discussion and probably arguing about which of those are the representative sample.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
        • I think the last part is where we disagree. I honestly don't believe the third-party variations warrant more than a couple of sentences about each of them, essentially noting their existence, something unique about them, etc. Those that are that complex and offer more than simple Genesis/Sega CD compatibility do already possess their own articles (see Sega Nomad, Pioneer LaserActive, Amstrad Mega PC). In the cases of each of those, the articles already do exist that can go into depth about such units. An example of how I see each mention would be similar to the first paragraph of the section for the Mega Drive Handheld: two short and sweet sentences that describe a little about the variation and hit the most important points. As I read over all of the paragraphs, hardly any of them really require much more than that, and such a list made from that would be a pretty short list, in my opinion. To me, although I know a list can be more than 5 items to be okay, it seems to be too short to me and the amount of actual necessary and notable content too short to warrant that. I guess that's just the way I see it. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 23:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
          • There are some new licensed variations not added to the article yet that came out in 2012. AtGames just keeps pumping new stuff out. I've just been so -_- when it comes to adding more sourced information lately.--SexyKick 00:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support compromise <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 22:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Stop being retarded yanks62.252.234.77 (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Nice violation of WP:NPA. I don't think stereotyping is the proper way to get what you want. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 01:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Genesis 6-Pak

Genesis 6-Pak doesn't appear to have any independent notability from a search engine test, though it could be worth a tiny mention in the Genesis article (as a console pack-in), if appropriate. czar · · 21:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'd just delete it, personally. I'd recommend PRODding it. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Merge: Yep, no notability on its own. The individual titles contained in it have their own notability, but this thing's only claim to fame was that it was the pack-in for Genesis Model 2. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Redirect to Multicart#Sega Mega Drive/Genesis. It's a multicart that has no notability on its own. --107.206.152.174 (talk) 09:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support This seems to make the most sense to me.--SexyKick 05:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Google Flavour text

Following on from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sega_Genesis/Archive_20#Google...

How does Google dicde what part to display for "Flavour Text"?

Searching for Mega Drive, currently gives:

Sega Genesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_Genesis‎ In Brazil, the Mega Drive was released by Tec Toy in 1990, only a year after the Brazilian release of the Sega Master System. Tec Toy also ran the internet ...

Which is OK, but not the most important part of the article to focus on if you're looking for Mega Drive.

Is there anything that can be done with the article or metadata so that a more relevent part of it is picked up, such as the opening secion:

The Sega Genesis (often shortened to Genesis) is a home video game console released by Sega in 1988 in Japan (as the Mega Drive (メガドライブ Mega Doraibu?)), North America in 1989 and in Europe and other regions in 1990 under the name Mega Drive ?

81.149.182.210 (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)