Jump to content

Talk:Sega/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Sega subsidiary infobox formats

Sonic Team
Native name
[ソニックチーム] Error: {{Lang}}: unrecognized language code: jp (help)
Sonikku chīmu
FormerlySega AM8
Company typeDivision
IndustryVideo game industry
Founded1988; 36 years ago (1988)
Headquarters
Ōta, Tokyo
,
Japan
Key people
Takashi Iizuka (producer)
ProductsList of Sonic Team games
ParentSega Games Co., Ltd.
Websitesonicteam.com
Atlus Co., Ltd.
Native name
[株式会社アトラス] Error: {{Lang}}: unrecognized language code: jp (help)
Kabushikigaisha atorasu
Company typeSubsidiary
IndustryVideo game industry
Founded
  • April 7, 1986; 38 years ago (1986-04-07) (as Atlus Co., Ltd.)
  • September 5, 2013; 11 years ago (2013-09-05) (as Sega Dream Corporation)
Headquarters
Setagaya, Tokyo
,
Japan
Key people
Akira Nomoto (president)
Products
OwnerSega Sammy Holdings
Number of employees
121 (2014)
ParentSega
SubsidiariesAtlus USA
Websiteatlus.co.jp

Hi there everyone, I've created this topic space to discuss the infobox company format for Sega subsidiaries like Sonic Team, Sega AM2, Atlus etc. Lately, I've been getting edit conflicts with the design of these infoboxes with regards to formatting. Now, I like to use a symmetrical infobox for all the subsidiaries of a company in order to be more analytically concise and make the transitions from one subsidiary to another as symmetrical as possible. In laymans terms, what should be the default infobox format for Sega subsidiaries for that further edit conflict don't occur? Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 12:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

In what manner do you mean symmetrical? There's only so many fields in the infobox and they have clearly defined purposes. -- ferret (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
The infobox here should only follow what the documentation states, so I'm not sure what all this debate is about. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
He got annoyed that I changed the products field on Sonic Team when I was rewriting the article. He wanted every article to list the games/series that he chooses instead. So I switched it link to the list article instead. He didn't like that either because it didn't match other Sega articles. I disagreed with him and discussed this with him at length on his talk page that not every infobox has to be identical. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Linking to the games section is perfectly acceptable, I've done it many times, especially where the product list is extensive. -- ferret (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
The1337gamer, please stop throwing labels, I was not annoyed. Look, let me give you an example of what my issue is. I've pasted the infoboxes on this chat to provide more content. Which format is preferable? the franchise list used for Sonic Team or the franchise list used for Atlus? Because I'm pretty sure there's a guideline to how an infobox is laid out. This inconsistency is also unfair on me if I follow the rules of editing only to have an edit clashed out. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
There's nothing inherently wrong with either. However Atlus has made far more than 5 series of games. It would be more logical to link to List of Atlus games instead when we have that option available. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Surely, there is an official ruling on Wikipedia as to how franchises are laid out? That would prevent editing future editing queries like this? (This is especially helpful with newer Wikipedia editors). Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 11:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't think there is. Infobox company is used for all companies, not just game companies, so it doesn't make sense to limitations on something so broad. The products parameter isn't limited to just video game franchises, any product can be entered there. If we have list of a developer's games, then it is easier to just link that. It saves arguing about which games or franchise should be placed there. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Agree with the1337gamer. -- ferret (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, perhaps this should be documented in WP:VG/GL somewhere. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2016

Can someone replace the category "Companies established in 1940" for "Companies established in 1960" to harmonize it with what's on the infobox. Thank you. 24.202.55.52 (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Done -- Dane talk 04:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Tokyo Movie Shinsha and Sega alliance

"The Japanese version of the official company history page http://www.tms-e.co.jp/company/history/index.php is much more detailed than its English counterpart http://www.tms-e.co.jp/english/company/profile/. I won't spend my time translating all the lines here, but rather pick up the lines that mentions Sega.

  • Heisei 4 (1992), August : Formed capital and business alliance with Sega Enterprises
  • Heisei 17 (2005), October : Sega Sammy Holdings is now the parent company
  • Heisei 22 (2010), December : Becomes wholly owned subsidiary of Sega Sammy Holdings
  • Heisei 27 (2015), April : Wholly owned subsidiary of Sega Holdings"
朝彦（会話） 2017年1月17日 (火) 11:53 (UTC)

Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 11:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2017

The second sentence of the Company origins (1940–1982) line (" In 1951, when the government of United States outlawed slot machines...") has hard to follow, improper grammar. Icanmakebagels (talk) 11:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP (talk • contribs) 14:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2017

Can someone add on the infobox the exact date for the founding of Sega which is June 3rd, 1960. Thank you.

References:

Merge Sega Seal of Quality

I came across the article Sega Seal of Quality and noted that it's small enough and little notable in its own right to warrant a separate article. The Nintendo equiv. has it's seal info in the parent article. I condensed Sega's seal article somewhat, but I suggest merging into a section on Sega. It the section then grows substantially or notability in its own right can be ascertained, then the process can be reviewed. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

  • @Bungle: I recommend you boldly go ahead and redirect/merge this article. It is not independently notable. The editor who recreated the article was blocked indefinitely for persistent disruptive editing, which included recreating and merging Sega-related articles that were opposed by numerous other editors. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
That is what I was inclined to do, but then I know from past experiences that some folk can be awkward about such changes if there hasn't even as much as an opportunity to determine consensus. It's minimal really and makes alot of sense, but I thought i'd give others a chance to just be informed, to avoid any disagreements (hopefully)! Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
The article is entirely sourceless and has been since creation, and no efforts have been made to improve it. Not sure who would be against the merging of it. I'll do it myself. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sega. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sega. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Sega development studios

https://www13.atwiki.jp/game_staff/pages/603.html#id_3d7108ad

This page provides a native summary of the Sega studios that are currently active, and the ones that are dissolved/defunct. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
But its a wiki, so is not a source in and of itself and anything list in it needs tracked back to actual sources. -- ferret (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm fully aware of that hence the reason why I'm posting here. However, this isn't the first instance in which the Sega studios have been more defined, here's there's a detailed forum post about the currently active Sega divisions. https://www.resetera.com/threads/an-overview-of-the-current-developers-in-sega-japan.17290/. I'd love to have someone look into this deeper, it can improve a lot of articles. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I made that research and did that thread on ResetEra (and SegaRetro and Sega dev studios), and for Wikipedia, I think a generic Sega branding for games other than explicitely mentioned in the game (Sonic Team, AM2), is much better...the only sources you find are Japanese interviews. The deeper you go, you will find interviews that never really tell the specific history of how the studios are structured throughout it's history, it just mentions the position and division at random. I just found out that there is a AM3 at Sega again (Hiring page), and there is no detail when it was formed and a complete list of games...when often Sega announces games like Valkyria Chronicles 4 and the new House of the Dead, a division is never mentioned. Is that new Sega World Drivers Championship game by AM3 or AM1? You don't know. Other Japanese companies like Capcom have entities like R&D1 making Mega Man and Resident Evil, the developer is just Capcom on Wikipedia. The same should be for Sega.--Rotzu3 (talk) 23:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC) - Block evading user.
The problem is a lot of the time, numbered company divisions like that are more assumptions by fans than an actual fact, easily sourced fact. (like the entire Nintendo EAD group number cruft, which I still need to fix...) If we have to do in-depth research from company hiring pages and obscure Japanese interviews with only a passing mention to the topic, then I don't agree that we should be adding this sort of stuff to Wikipedia. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 07:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
It's that way pretty badly in Sega as well - I spent a week cleaning out Sonic Team trying to illustrate that it wasn't ever "Sega-AM8" despite reliable retrospective sources saying for years that that's the case. Historic sources, which for the most part had to be translated from Japanese, disprove it. Coincidentally, I then find out that AM8, in a historic reliable source, is linked as a name to AM Annex, which was later United Game Artists. That means it goes from inaccurate to misleading. Red Phoenix talk 00:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Note that Rotzu3 is blocked as a sock of Triple-DDD, and any information attributed to him should be handled extremely carefully. -- ferret (talk) 12:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. Please do not use unreliable sources, like wikis, Sega Retro or Resetera to justify changes on Wikipedia. Especially, when these sources are being edited/worked on by someone who is indefinitely blocked on Wikipedia. He's tried in the past to manipulate other users into proxy editing for him. --The1337gamer (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Tearing into this article

Hi all,

Just as a heads-up, I'm going to start tearing into this article today and rebuilding it. For the most part I'm wanting to use the same structure with a bit of tweaking and a lot of new sources and material. That being said, I think everyone agrees there's a lot of work that can be done here. If anyone would like to put in some input, though, I certainly won't complain about having some extra help or some input into making this article the best it can be. I'm going to aim for FA status, as I think it's certainly doable. Feel free to chat with me about it if you have any input, disagree with a change I've made, or otherwise have something to contribute. Thank you, Red Phoenix talk 12:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Update

Could we have more recent figures on number of employees? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.225.213 (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

If we can find it reliably sourced, absolutely. Reliable sources about Sega since the Sammy merger have been more scarce, though, so I’ll have to see what i can find as I search for more. Red Phoenix talk 15:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
And now one has been added, courtesy of Sega Sammy's most recent annual report. Will need to be updated next year, too. Red Phoenix talk 15:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Sega/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Indrian (talk · contribs) 22:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

  • I've been bad recently about wrapping up GAs in a timely manner, but this one is too important to pass up. I will probably do this in chunks to keep it moving. Indrian (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Well, I'm glad to see that you didn't die of dysentery, at least. I'm glad to see you took this one; I could think of no one better if Sega is to be the best article it can be. On that note, a couple of things you should know before you start:
      • I'm totally okay with this one going in chunks. I'm around to stay this time, and I think given the large amount of subject matter that chunks will result in a more robust review.
      • I also started a new article, History of Sega, last week as a WP:SUMMARY split after discussion with the Video games WikiProject to try and cover the history in detail, due to issues with page size. I literally was crashing the VisualEditor trying to work with it. I had a hard time trying to sort out what should go where after doing this separation, so one thing I would like for us to discuss is what facts should go where, what should stay and what should only be on the spinout article for this one to be appropriate size. History of Sega still has room for expansion in my eyes and I will be trying to fill in the gaps there even as this GA review goes on.
      • It is my full intention to take this and History of Sega to FAC after GA reviews and more work to make these articles the best they can be. In many ways, I like to think of this article as the culmination of our work together, as well as TheTimesAreAChanging and all the other editors who have pitched in.
      • After this GA review, I wanted to see if you wanted to collaborate on an effort to make this and the spinout featured articles, if time allows you. I firmly believe you deserve a lot of credit for the success of the subject of Sega on Wikipedia and would love to share it with you for these articles.
    • I look forward to your comments. This article has been a long time coming to make it here. Let's see how good we can make it. Red Phoenix talk 00:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@Indrian: No rush here, but I wanted to notify you that History of Sega is now also at GAN after I've worked on expanding and polishing up that article. Because of how closely related that article is to this one as a spinout article, I thought this might interest you and see if you would consider reviewing both together to help get the correct amount of content with total accuracy into both articles. I am okay with the review taking all the time you need; my goal is to make these two the highest quality and most accurate articles I have written on Wikipedia. Red Phoenix talk 21:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Another heads-up: if you see little tags in the prose popping up, I've asked Popcornduff to do a full copyedit to help speed things along. He creates tags for me to address as he works on the prose. There won't be a need to quick-fail the article for the presence of these tags, as I will be addressing them as I pop up, as my time allows. Looking forward to a great review. Red Phoenix talk 01:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. Should be starting this week. Indrian (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

It's still the week of December 19th, right? No? Well, anyway, time to get this monster started:

Lead

  • "In 1960, Nihon Goraku Bussan was founded to take over the distribution activities of Service Games of Japan" - From a reader's perspective, this comes out of nowhere as they were just reading an article about Sega and are now suddenly reading about some weird thing called Nihon Goraku Bussan. The opening sentence of the paragraph should link these companies in some way.
    • Still working on this one. Trying to figure out how to word it.
      • I gave this a try. Let me know if it works or not.
  • "Sega began developing coin-operated games with Periscope, an arcade game" - In this case, coin-operated game and arcade game are redundant, I would ditch "an arcade game" and link "coin-operated games" to the arcade game article.
    • Addressed.
  • "Although it initially struggled in the U.S. and was a distant third in Japan, the Genesis found major success after the release of Sonic the Hedgehog in 1991 and briefly outsold its main competitor, the Super Nintendo Entertainment System, in the U.S." - Mentioning the U.S. twice here is probably not necessary. I would change it to something like "Although a distant third in Japan, the Genesis found major success in the U.S. after initially struggling with the release of Sonic the Hedgehog in 1991."
    • It looks like this has already been done.
  • The lead basically stops in 2004, so I don't think it fully summarizes the contents of the article.
    • I've added a sentence here. I found this a bit difficult, as there is far less coverage of Sega post-2004 than before it. If you disagree with what I've added, let me know and I will work on it further.

Origins and Arcade Success

  • "pinball and gun games by Midway Games" - Two things: Midway did not make pinball machines, and it was Midway Manufacturing, not Midway Games.
    • Okay. This may have been some ambiguity in the translation by Shmuplations, or maybe I just misread it. I reviewed the text and saw how it could be a bit ambiguous. Corrected.
  • "originally released by Namco and licensed to Sega for worldwide release in the late 1960s" - This is not known to be true and is, in fact, probably not true. The Horowitz book does not actually state that Namco licensed the game to Sega, but states it as one of several possibilities. All we know for certain is that Namco claims to have released a Periscope game in 1965 and Sega claims to have released theirs in 1966 and the two games look nearly identical in pictures.
    • Removed. Wikipedia's article says it is a Namco release, too. That being said, that might be an interesting article to research in the future and get the story straight there too, especially if it's as impactful on the arcade market as reading the sources suggests it was. Perhaps a future project -- but I guess that's irrelevant for the moment.
  • "Following financial struggles and rampant piracy, in 1969, Sega was sold to American conglomerate Gulf and Western Industries" - This sentence conflates a couple of things and does not actually follow the source accurately. Sega halted exports to the US due to rampant piracy, but the company was not struggling financially. They sold to G&W because they wanted to become a public company, but were unable to do so in Japan and therefore needed a foreign backer.
    • I'll admit I found this confusing and tough to keep straight as I read my source. I'll go back and reread it and see if I can get it fixed.
      • I think I've got a good understanding of it now. Fixed here, and I think I'll actually want to expand into detail on this in the History of Sega article later on.

Entry into the Home Console Market

  • "who owned Esco Boueki (Esco Trading), acquired by Rosen in 1979" - This phrasing implies that Esco continued to exist after being purchased by Sega, but I do not believe that is the case.
    • I redid this by bumping this up into the previous section, since it did happen before 1982, and I would like to try and keep this chronological.
  • ", Gulf and Western executives turned to Sega Enterprises, Ltd. president" - This is old phrasing we have used in several articles (in fact, I think I might have added the phrasing), but is, in fact, inaccurate. We now know G&W had no interest in getting into the console market and that Nakayama's decision to do so played a role in their eagerness to sell the business.
    • I think it was yours, but that's a good catch. I'm sure just a fact we've had more resources on in the last five years to clarify. I fixed it here, and I'm going to have to go around and fix it elsewhere. As I'm limited on time at the moment, that may have to happen in the next week or two.
  • "This led to Sega's first home video game system, the SG-1000, in Japan" - Again, its incredible how much we know now that was still a mystery just five years ago. Its now known that the SC-3000 home computer was Sega's first system and that they only adapted it into the SG-1000 due to the announcement of the Famicom.
    • Yeah, it is pretty amazing. I remember doing the SC-1000 article five years ago and it had to be very bare-bones, and in the five years since then a bunch of resources have come up. Corrected here.

32X, Saturn, and Falling Sales

  • "As a result of the company's deteriorating financial situation, Nakayama resigned as president of Sega in January 1998 in favor of Irimajiri" - I mean, yes that is the big picture, but the direct cause of Nakayama's departure was a failed merger with Bandai. Management of both companies completed a deal and then the shareholders revolted, which is probably more unusual in Japan than even in the United States, where its not exactly common. The heads of Bandai and Sega both stepped down over that mess.
    • I will have to look for a source for that. I had not seen that at all, though I had heard about the failed Bandai merger. I'll take the lead and run with it when I can find time soon.
      • @Indrian: Can you help me line up these dates so I can get this right? I have a slight date discrepancy here: I found this, and one dated to when it happened in May 1997. According to the sources, Bandai's head stepped down basically right afterward, but my source on Nakayama's resignation dates him stepping down to January 1998, nearly eight months afterward. That's quite a while. I did find this that suggests speculation that that was responsible, though the date on the article is clearly wrong (perhaps an import from a site move or something). Does this still sound right to you, and is there anything more concrete that that's why, or just best to say it's speculated that was the cause given what I could find in sources? Red Phoenix talk 19:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
        • I've given this a try in the meantime, hoping it's accurate. I also expanded even further on History of Sega about the situation, because I realized how important it was and I somehow skipped over it. Red Phoenix talk 01:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


That will do for a first round, which is mostly focused on making sure the material in the article is accurate. I am not nearly done with this review. Its a big article, and I am still grappling with what material is essential and how the material should be organized. There are very few GAs on corporations, so they do not provide a lot of guidance in this area. I am confident this article can reach GA status, I just want to take great care in making sure we organize and summarize in the best possible manner. I look forward to continuing this review with you in the coming days. I am going to put this review  On hold just so people realize we are actively working on things, but have no plans to actually reevaluate and pass/fail within 7 days. Indrian (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Indrian: It's been a while, any word yet? While I have been very patient, I do also have some time goals I want to hit with this article; namely, I'd like it to be through an FA review in time to be on the Main Page for June 3, 2020 (which will be Sega's 60th anniversary). That's a long process too, and I'm not holding my breath given simply the amount of material here that it will necessarily pass a first review there. I don't mean to be pushy, but if I don't have the review completed before too long, I will likely need to seek outside assistance to finish reviewing this article for GA status so that I can ensure it will make it to that goal. I'm also planning on a DYK submission after this article does get to GA status to give it a smaller main page mention. If I don't hear back from you by April 15, I will seek a second opinion. Red Phoenix talk 19:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I hate to do this, but at this point I am going to seek a second opinion. I haven't heard back in a while. Indrian, your feedback is still welcome, of course, and I will consider it carefully, but now over six months in, I need to ensure this is seen through. Red Phoenix talk 20:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, if you give a deadline, you should really not pull it up prematurely, but I wholeheartedly agree it's time for someone else to take this on. As it stands, I am currently under a major publishing deadline. When I took this on, I had hoped to have most of it done before my deadline got close, but that obviously did not happen, and I have had no time to give these large articles the close attention they deserve. I will be happy to provide feedback as appropriate and will certainly give this a review when it goes to FA. My apologies that I was not able to see this through to the end. I blame life. Good luck! Indrian (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2018

The logo caption on the infobox says that the current logo has been used since 1982. That is an incorrect year. The current logo is much older than 1982 and the user who inserted this incorrect year never provided an edit summary (as pretty much all of his/her contributions). [1].

Based on the following source below, 1975 is indeed when the correct logo was adopted.

https://flyers.arcade-museum.com/?page=archive&db=videodb&name=&year=1975&manu=16&source=&submit=Search+the+Archive

As we can see in the database, both the old and the current logos were used in 1975 implying this is the year the logo changed. I suggest that either "1975" is restored in the place of "1982" on the logo caption or that the logo caption is removed altogether from the infobox since it doesn't really add anything to the article. 74.15.124.52 (talk) 02:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done. I reverted it to 1975, although I'm not sure how picky people get about including that info. Someone else can always remove it if it's a problem. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Making a note of this page being copied

In doing more research to make sure this article is fully compliant, I want to make a note of something I turned up. Using Earwig's Copyvio Dectector, there are two pages on the internet that say this article may be a copyright violation of them. What I want to point out is that this is the opposite of the case, and that both pages are actually copied from Wikipedia without proper attribution. The two pages in question are a blog, https://hiscoga.wordpress.com/sega-dreamcast-1998-2001/ and another wiki, http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/NintenSony . Most of the material from these pages come from the Sega Saturn and Dreamcast articles, which had text imported to this article as part of the cleanup process, a completely acceptable method between similar Wikipedia articles as long as credit is given, which was completed in the edit summary for each copy. Those articles were completed with their versions of the text in 2013 or 2014, while both of these two websites date to 2016. Therefore, they are actually copies of Wikipedia articles, not the other way around.

I wanted simply to make this statement and establish this for future reviewers. Red Phoenix talk 12:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

New picture

"Sega's headquarters complex in Kampachi-dori, Haneda, Japan"

Does anyone know what this building actually is used for? I haven't seen anything referring to a building in Haneda. To my understanding, Sega used to be headquartered in Ota, but as recently as last year moved to Shinagawa-ku, along with Sega Holdings Co., Ltd. What building is this one in Haneda? Red Phoenix talk 13:56, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

If no one finds an answer to this, ping me some time next year and I'll physically go to the building and find out. edit: or, uh, I could just call them. Popcornduff (talk) 13:58, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Okay, so I did find an answer - this building belongs to Sega Interactive Co., Ltd., which currently runs Sega's arcade divisions. Sega Games Co., Ltd., and Sega Holdings, the more direct subjects of this article, are in Shinagawa-ku. I don't think it's the best image for this article and would prefer it to be of the building in Shinagawa, but I would call this image an upgrade over the last one, which isn't used by Sega anymore. Red Phoenix talk 15:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I just got rid of it due to it not being relevant to the article's scope, like you said. The logo is the only thing that needs to be shown in the infobox anyway. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Slightly unrelated, but isn't Atlus currently located in the same location? is it possible to use the same image for the Atlus article if that is indeed the case? Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I was actually just in Tokyo this month and visited their old HQ in Ota (still Sega) and their new HQ building in Shinagawa. Their new corporate HQ building is quite large and shared with other unrelated companies. I got some pictures but honestly I don't think any of them are quite good. It was difficult to find a spot which got the small Sega sign at the top of the building. The building is called 住友不動産大崎ガーデンタワー and it's so new that Google Maps still shows it under construction (It was quite finished when I visited). And yes Atlus is headquartered in the same building. TarkusABtalk 15:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
@TarkusAB: That's amazing. I would love to see those pictures if you have the chance. Perhaps you might still be willing to upload them to Wikimedia Commons? They don't need to be used on an article necessarily if they're there. Red Phoenix talk 17:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Yea I'll see about doing that tonight. TarkusABtalk 18:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Outsold the SNES in the early 90s

@TheTimesAreAChanging: I'm having serious trouble establishing what your preferred wording is trying to say. It outsold the SNES in the US during the early 90s... as opposed to what? The late 90s? Other markets? Other consoles? Why does this sentence break if we remove "the early 90s"? This is the ambiguity I'm trying to fix, so instead of making me guess at the intended meaning, can you explain it here explicitly? Popcornduff (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, the reason this jumps out at me as a problem in the first place is that it's a case of elegant variation. The writer clearly wants to avoid writing "first/second half of the 90s" twice and the repetition is obvious. As I argue in my essay WP:ELEVAR, the real problem of repetition usually emerges from repeated information rather than repeated words. And in this case I can't even straighten out what information is being repeated here. Popcornduff (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

It's not a good idea to edit something unless you fully understand what it is trying to say. So, very simply, the text means what it explicitly says it means—the Genesis outsold the SNES in the U.S. market during the first half of the 1990s (specifically in the years 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994), but the SNES outsold the Genesis from 1995–1997 and beyond (as Sega shifted its attention to the Saturn). Ultimately, 20 million SNES units were sold in the U.S. market compared to 18.5 million Genesis units, according to Wedbush 2014 (p. 36); globally, SNES sales of 49 million dwarf Genesis sales of ~35 million (30.75 million being first-party units manufactured by Sega, the rest third-party variants sold by Tec Toy, Majesco, and Samsung). You are second-guessing the text based on preconceived notions such as "the first half of the 90s is like 80% of the time these consoles were on sale," but it's not clear what I can do to dispel these other than to reiterate: No, the Genesis was on sale from 1988 to 1997, while the SNES was on sale from 1990 to 2003 (or 1999 in North America); late adopters are more common than early adopters, and it's very likely that SNES sales in North America from 1995–2000 equaled or exceeded those from 1990–1995; a blanket statement that the Genesis "outsold its main competitor, the Super Nintendo Entertainment System" is not a mere copyedit, but rather a fundamental change to the meaning of the sentence—the caveat (not written by me, incidentally) was put there for a reason! Don't tear down a wall unless you know why it was built in the first place.
Of course, I am aware that some hardcore Genesis fans from yesteryear seek to nullify Nintendo's victory in the U.S. market by saying that the early years of the "console war" are all that really matters, as Sega shifted its attention to the Saturn a full year-and-a-half before Nintendo fully ditched the SNES for the N64, but the period of retail availability for both consoles in the North American market is almost exactly the same due to the Genesis having a two-year head start; besides, the SNES was a more advanced piece of tech, so it's not at all surprising that it might have remained relevant for slightly longer in the face of fifth-generation competition. This rationale is also somewhat inconsistent with the simultaneous argument espoused by such partisans that, if Majesco indeed sold 1.5 million third-party variants of the Genesis in 1998 as it predicted in a press release, then it's just barely within the realm of possibility that Genesis sales in North America equaled those of the SNES at roughly 20 million, hence righting this "historical wrong." But really, Wikipedia should not be concerned with such narratives; we should report the basic facts and leave the analysis to others.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for this thorough explanation. I did assume that the early 90s made up the bulk of the sales for these consoles, so thanks for setting me straight.
It's not a good idea to edit something unless you fully understand what it is trying to say ... Don't tear down a wall unless you know why it was built in the first place. The point is that these can be easily misunderstood, hence my own confusion. I thought I understood the point being made and it turned out I didn't because the wording is ambiguous. I think, however, that TheTimesAreAChanging's TheJoebro64's addition of "briefly" might just have solved the problem for both of us. What do you think? Popcornduff (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
That text was added by TheJoebro64, and I think it does a good job of succinctly conveying the facts of this case. My proposal was to list the years 1991–1994, but that may be too much granular detail for the lead of a long and complex article covering decades worth of information like this one.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 14:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Whoops! Sorry TheJoebro64, I copy-pasted the wrong username above. Thanks for finding a good solution. Popcornduff (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Anytime JOEBRO64 14:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Sega/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sjones23 (talk · contribs) 02:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    Dead citations have been replaced. Will check for plagiarism and copyvios a bit later.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Discussion

@Hahc21: I'm placing this review on hold for now. Since you are a mentor for GAs in regards to video games, can you please look into the issues I have regarding the OR and copyvio concerns? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Sjones23: What concerns do you have? I can help to address them if I know what they are. Red Phoenix talk 02:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I wanted to double check to see if there's OR or any copyvios, as well as to make sure that all of the dead citations have to be replaced. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
If it helps, on copyright violations, I'll refer you to Earwig's Copyvio detector, which shows no likely violations and what does have a percentage is because a direct quote is used. Checklinks shows me no dead links, and everything should be archived regardless of whether or not it was a dead link to begin with. On OR, I can give you only my personal assurance that I vetted everything out, but even I will admit I'm not 100% foolproof. I am certainly glad to wait until you get to hear back, but hopefully this helps your review. Red Phoenix talk 03:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I think it looks good to me. No major copyright violations or original research here. Unless someone objects, I'll wait for a few more days before I pass or fail it. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
No further objections. This article has now been passed. Good work. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Recent "trimming"

Some of Popcornduff's recent copyedits had merit, while others were a bit too aggressive in my opinion, although I will let Red Phoenix weigh in rather than reverting anything myself. With that said, I want to call attention to an error that Popcornduff accidentally introduced into the article here: Changing "Adam Redsell of IGN noted that Sega developed several concepts that have become mainstream in more modern video game consoles, such as motion controls, online functionality, and memory expansion" to "The Dreamcast is remembered for being ahead of its time, with several concepts that became standard in consoles, such as motion controls, online functionality, and memory expansion" implies that the Dreamcast was a pioneer in memory expansion, which is incorrect and contrary to the source. Rather, Redsell notes that the Sega CD and later Sega Saturn included internal backup memory at a time when other console manufacturers were charging customers for memory cards, but that Sega itself resorted to memory cards (the distinctive VMUs) for the Dreamcast.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. Red Phoenix asked me to do a copyediting sweep, so that's what I'm doing. I'm not going to read every source to make sure I've interpreted the text correctly before editing - I trust you guys to catch errors I introduce so just go ahead and fix them. Popcornduff (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I’ll take a look over it tomorrow. Had a lot to do at work lately. Red Phoenix talk 18:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

32X, Saturn, and falling sales section

This section reads, "The 32X would not be compatible with the Saturn, but would play Genesis games." but Saturn is not yet explained in the article at all so it was very confusing to read it. It should probably be mentioned that the Saturn was being developed and then they decided to work on the 32X? I don't know the actual timeline. Also, congrats on the GA! --Odie5533 (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Good catch; I had not seen that. Fixed :) Red Phoenix talk 13:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Sonic image

Am I dreaming, or was there once an image of Sonic in the article? Did it get removed for copyright reasons or something?

If I am dreaming, wouldn't it be a good idea to add an image? Sonic is important to the topic. Popcornduff (talk) 17:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

IIRC it was removed when History of Sega was split. JOEBRO64 17:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Ah, thanks... that's the image I remember being in this article. If no one objects I'll add it here too. Popcornduff (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Actually, this was removed per comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sega/archive1 on concerns its inclusion may not meet WP:NFCC#8. I won't take action back now, but should we discuss? Red Phoenix talk 17:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't know about copyright stuff in detail so for all I know we should remove it. But I think it's noticeable if it's not there, it's something readers will expect to see, and so my inclination would be to keep it until someone who knows better says otherwise. Popcornduff (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Now that the FAC is out of the way...

(And many congrats, again, to all involved - much deserved...)

... Small idea. Should the sections about the consoles contain perhaps a sentence or two about what the consoles are remembered for, entertainment-wise? For example, Dreamcast innovated with online play and games like PSO, Shenmue, Jet Set Radio, etc - should that be mentioned? The console sections focus on Sega's business decisions, which makes sense because this is an article about a business, but Sega is in the business of making entertainment products, so perhaps a tiny amount more detail about its creative output might be good too. Sonic 1 is covered in the Genesis section, and the Saturn's library gets a mention in the Legacy section but that's kind of it. Popcornfud (talk) 11:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, that was kind of the idea of the legacy section so the History could focus on the business decisions. That being said, I'm certainly not against the idea as long as we keep it concise and can source it very well. Red Phoenix talk 11:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Puyo Puyo purchase

@Namcokid47: Still think that the Puyo Puyo purchase from Compile at Sega should be in the article. In a way Technosoft is similarly trivial I believe.OtopNr.3 (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

No it should not. Nowhere in the article does it list times where Sega bought franchises from other developers, so why list Puyo Puyo? That feels like trivia only fans would care about, and not the average reader. I fail to see the connection between Puyo and Technosoft, because the latter is a game developer with multiple franchises and intellectual properties under its name. The Sega article talks about the company buying other developers, which includes Technosoft. I am against the idea of Puyo being mentioned because it is trivia. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 16:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Agreed that this is a detail for the Puyo Puyo page, not the Sega page. Not a major moment in the company history. Popcornfud (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Probably better for History of Sega than here, but...

I stumbled across this today. Anybody heard of this or if there was a resolution? Red Phoenix talk 14:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

News coming soon

Just something we'll want to keep an eye on. JOEBRO64 12:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Sega leaving the arcade management business

Yahoo! Japan reported today that Sega is selling its Sega Entertainment division to Genda, and will be exiting the arcade management business later this year. I wouldn't include it right away, since it could change, but I'll leave it here incase this goes through. Real sad news to wake up to today. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 18:14, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Uhm, wow, I totally missed that (or that there was a post here a month ago). Very sad, but somehow not unexpected from Sega Sammy Holdings, and I know Sega Entertainment has been up and down with a lot of down in its profitability. @Namcokid47: if you happen to see more about it, can you let me know and I'll get it incorporated into the article? Thank you. Red Phoenix talk 14:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2021

Hello. I am writing to request a grammatical change from pictured to picture. The word is found in the sentence: "Sega Sammy Holdings (current logo pictured)". Chgka1 (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. 15 (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


Sega never outsold the SNES in the US. In fact the SNES outsold the Genesis so the intro is all wrong

That’s actually not entirely correct, if you would actually read on. Up through 1993, the Genesis did actually have a lead in the US. From 1994 on, though, the SNES did indeed outsell Genesis. Red Phoenix talk 00:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

That isn’t true. The SNES had the lead over the Genesis in 1993 and 1994 so no what he’s saying IS entirely correct. Sega didn’t have a lead in 1993. Nintendo outsold Sega in the US. This is factual if you would actually know anything about history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NintendoMeister (talk • contribs) 08:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong again. Actually read the article and look at the sources first before making such unsourced claims. Reliable sources, both used here and around the internet, demonstrate that Sega did take a lead in 1993 in the US before losing it around the end of 1994 into 1995, in part because of Donkey Kong Country. Also, NintendoMeister, I suggest you read up on our policies first, such as WP:V and WP:RS before making statements like "This is factual" without anything to back it up first. Red Phoenix talk 22:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Indrian: should a little blurb about segas sellers in the early 3rd party years be added? you removed it, so id like reasoning. Dop55 (talk) 08:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

HUGE run on sentence where Sonic the Hedgehog is mentioned ......

That " sentence " should be 2 or 3 separate sentences. Can someone PLEASE fix this so it doesnt leahe the reader reading that " sentence " like 5 times in a row , as i had to do to make any sense of it ? 2601:18F:E82:A10:3962:975:5CCE:AAC1 (talk) 10:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I double-check and it looks fine to me; did you maybe miss a semicolon when you read it? Red Phoenix talk 18:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2023

The current logo was established in 1975, not in 1976.

Source:https://flyers.arcade-museum.com/videogames/show/2552

The logo caption should either be corrected to 1975 or blanked altogether since it doesn't really add any encyclopedic value to the article.

In November 2018, a similar edit request was successfully approved to change the incorrect year of 1982 to 1975. Over the time, the logo caption was (rightfully) removed from the infobox. But on November 28, 2021, a user restored the caption with the incorrect year of 1976 and with no edit summary to justify this. 76.64.176.155 (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Caption removed. Simple as that. Red Phoenix talk 00:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Key people needs updating in the infobox

Based on Shuji Utsumi's promotion. But I don't really get what's changed here or if the previously listed people are in new roles, so I'm hoping someone else can figure it out instead. Popcornfud (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

When the next fiscal year end report comes out will probably be a good primary source for this. If I recall correctly their fiscal years end at the end of March, so it may be a couple of months. Red Phoenix talk 15:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Cool. We should probably at least update Utsumi's title, since that's known, right? Popcornfud (talk) 16:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
With a source, yes of course. Red Phoenix talk 23:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
I added the info + source to the body earlier this week. I've gone ahead and added the info to the infobox too, and I removed the two other guys listed there, as leaving them in the infobox would be self-contradictory. Popcornfud (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Sega internal development divisions

There has been a lot of confusion, in regards to the pages for Sega's internal development divisions in Japan, for CS1 (original AM11/R&D4/AV/NE) and CS2 (original CS3/Saturn-era CS3/R&D8/Sonic Team Ltd./GE1) (both brand names (RGG Studio and Sonic Team) are used whenever Sega makes a Like a Dragon/Yakuza or Sonic the Hedgehog game, for all other projects done by the CS branches (as in non-Sonic/Yakuza games, such as Super Monkey Ball games), the Sega name is solely used. In regards to the last surviving development studio within Sega Fave (AM1), most all of Overworks and WOW Entertainment's history is there despite starting life as two separate Sega divisions (original CS2/R&D7 and original AM1/R&D1) before gaining their studio names during the 2000s and their consolidation back into the Sega fold in 2004. There also the AM3 page which combines info from Hitmaker (original AM3/R&D3) and Sega Rosso. The question is how can we organize this, to specify division name and to avoid this mess in the future? VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004 (talk) 15:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

However, the reason why Sonic Team and RGG Studio are used as brand names rather than official division names is that the divisions can work on other non-Sonic/Yakuza projects but only under the Sega banner. VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004 (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
@VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004: As I’ve said on the other talk pages you’ve posted this to, where is your source on this? And not “the logo isn’t on a website or a box” but a source that follows WP:V. Your statement isn’t even true considering that Super Monkey Ball: Banana Blitz HD and Super Monkey Ball Banana Mania are both mentioned on the RGG website. As other users have pointed out to you, there’s also WP:COMMONNAME, where using the Sonic Team and RGG names seems to fit the best. VenFlyer98 (talk) 20:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Check the careers site for Sega Corporation and the Sega Group, this might be reliable and verifiable since there is a section in regards to the development divisions as in: Div 1 (RGG), Div 2 (Sonic Team), Div 3 (PSO games) and Div 4 (mobile games and GaaS), the careers site also dosen't mention the studio brand names for the big two (CS1 & CS2). VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004 (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
I’d much rather see this kind of info in a secondary source rather than a primary one. It’s easy to get caught up and have OR start to slip in off of just primaries. Red Phoenix talk 12:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
@VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004: This does not meet WP:V or WP:RS, this is WP:OR. You need an independent secondary source, not Sega’s website or any part of it. RGG and Sonic Team are the common names, they meet WP:COMMONNAME so the pages should stay the way they are. VenFlyer98 (talk) 04:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
It's still my belief that these suggestions would violate WP:COMMONNAME. Sergecross73 msg me 19:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: That’s a factor but I think it goes even beyond that. The Sega development studios were really well known in the later 90s and early 2000s separately from one another, but that’s really the only period that this is the case. Most secondary sources, including video gaming magazines, tend to just credit Sega for games after the Sammy merger in 2004. Beyond that there’s been so many mergers and studios housed in larger divisions that almost all of it post-2004 is OR or borderline, and that goes for Sonic Team as well. AM2 is likely the only exception, and even there the coverage level drops sharply after 2004. As far as we know RGG Studio is a part of CS1, as Sonic Team is just a part of CS2, but we don’t actually know much of anything about CS1 or 2; no games are credited to them and all we hear in sources are a minor passing mention or a job listing or something like that. Red Phoenix talk 11:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I completely agree. Even prior to the merger, there's been endless debates over who was the developer of the Genesis Sonic the Hedgehog and Ristar type games because they've been unclear and inconsistent in crediting/labeling their teams. I just mean that COMMONNAME makes the proposal a non-starter anyways. Perhaps it'd be more accurate to say: Short version: Serge's comment. Long version: Red Phoenix's explanation. Sergecross73 msg me 13:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sega/Archive_2&oldid=1248776488"