User talk:IceWelder: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:59, 5 December 2016

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thank you for all your hard work in cleaning up Jamie-Lee Kriewitz article and bringing it to a high standard of quality in accordance with several Wikipedia policies and manual of style corrections. Wes Mouse ✒ 19:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Atlus and Sega Dream Corporation

http://www.siliconera.com/2014/02/18/atlus-index-back-atlus/ http://www.segasammy.co.jp/english/pr/corp/profile.html

Look, Atlus as a brand did start in 1986, however, that entity was dissolved when Sega acquired Index Corporation. Look at the Siliconera article and the corporate profile of Naoya Tsurumi. It clearly states within the Sega Sammy Corporate Profile "President and Representative Director of SEGA DREAM CORPORATION (now ATLUS. CO., LTD.)". Why does it not just say "ATLUS. CO., LTD?". Sega Dream Corporation is a shell corporation to absorb all of Index Corporations assets. Index Corporation dissolved and Sega Dream Corporation was the remaining company. http://www.segasammy.co.jp/english/pdf/release/20130918_index_e_final.pdf

You also need to have a read into IXIT Corporation to better understand the reason why your edit is incorrect. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 12:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are informing yourself about Wikipedia on Wikipedia, linking to me sources that are linked exactly this way here, but wrongly. Firstly note that Index Corporation did not go defunct, you actually linked to it yourself—iXIT Corporation. The cycle of Atlus went as follows: Incorporated in 1986, acquired in 2014 and deactived as developer/publisher. It was, however, retained as licensor, alike LucasArts currently. At that point Atlus Co., Ltd. is a part of Index Corporation. Index Corporation is acquired, and their software business assets (withunder Atlus Co., Ltd., its subsid Atlus Holdings, Inc., and the sub-subsid Atlus U.S.A., Inc.) are re-organized into Sega Dream Corporation. Now, Atlus Co., Ltd., an brand-naming licensing company is a subsidiary of Sega Dream Corporation, and not the Corporation itself, as the article currently claims. Sega Dream Corporation is renamed Index Corporation and the actual Index Corporation is sold and renamed iXIT Corporation. Atlus Co., Ltd. is now a subsidiary of Index Corporation. 2014; the gaming business of Index Corporation, aka. Atlus Holdings, Inc., Atlus U.S.A., Inc., and Atlus Co., Ltd., is split from Index Corporation and structually re-organized as a direct company tree subsidiary of Sega Games Co., Ltd. (commonly known as Sega, which is used per WP:COMMONNAME). Now what is the result? A company of the name Atlus Co., Ltd. switches hands a couple of times and is deactivated as well as re-actived as a fully-fledged company. Other than the seemingly obsessed anonymous IP editor, I will try to find some sources on the matter than explain clearly in English (or any other language I am able to read) how it came to be this way. Lordtobi (✉) 12:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: While I was writing this response, you willingfully revert edits related to this very discussion topic. You a) gave me no chance to reply in time and b) broke WP:3RR, the "three revert rule". You asked before how to avoid edit warring, but you did not listen. Please respect that in the future. Lordtobi (✉) 12:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're only partially right. Look, let me put it to you in layman terms so we can be in consensus here. Index Corporation went bankrupt. Sega acquired the bankrupt Index Corporation. Dissolved the bankrupt entity and absorbed all its assets into a new company called Sega Dream Corporation. The old Index Corporation is finished, it is no more. This new company, Sega Dream Corporation then split all of its video game development assets into a company called Atlus and all of its marketing and business development assets into a company called Index Corporation. Sega Dream Corporation is no more. Then, as a corporate reformation, Sega sold it's Index Corporation subsidiary (formerly Sega Dream Corporations marketing and business development side) to Sawadao Holdings. And please don't disrespect Wikipedia editors, it makes you look arrogant and is not community spirit. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 12:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are right in what you are saying, clearing up that minor confusion with iXIT Corp. However, it still supports my thesis on "Atlus Co., Ltd. = Atlus Co., Ltd.", as detailed above. Are there any sources that prove that the company known as "Atlus Co., Ltd.", formed in 1986, was entirely disestablished, also legally, so that the current Atlus Co., Ltd. must be a new legal entity? If a company is publicly dead, even if not legally, we handle it as defunct, however if the same company is rebooted, which is the case here, we say it was "re-opened" but still founded on the same date as it is the same company. If they dry out legally, newly-founded companies are handeled as actually new companies (alike Atari, Inc. and Atari, Inc. (Atari, SA subsidiary)). Lordtobi (✉) 13:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Are there any sources that prove that the company known as "Atlus Co., Ltd.", formed in 1986, [...]." Yes the dissolution notice of Atlus below from Index Corporation, the company that dissolved Atlus. Unfortunately it's in Japanese, but the source can't be any more reliable than that.

https://web.archive.org/web/20130428201854/http://www.index-hd.com/press/?p=1002

As to the current Atlus being a new company. Well the company's website says that the company was founded in September 2013. The info can't be any more reliable than the company itself.

http://www.atlus.co.jp/company/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.55.52 (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the article linked states that the company was merged, not dissolved. It is very likely that merged companies remain active after a merger (such as Rockstar Vancouver, which changed its name twice after being merged, and still appears on Take-Two's annual reports, but is inactive and therefore handeled as defunct, as possible future events cannot be foreseen per WP:CRYSTALBALL). This rather, even if not really, supports my thesis rather than refuting it. Regarding the official website part, we cannot always verify what is said there, even if there would be no reason for them to put up false or misleading statements. If possible, try to look up the company in a Japanese business/company register, and check if it was dissolved legally. Lordtobi (✉) 14:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Check the section (2) of Index'reports that says the following. If you don't read Japanese, translate it with Google translator. It says that Atlus was dissolved.

合併の方法

当社を吸収合併存続会社、インデックスおよびアトラスを吸収合併消滅会社とする吸収合併方式であり、インデックスおよびアトラス::::::は解散いたします

Yes, Atlus merged with Index but in the process one of the two companies was killed in the process. Unless a merger is performed to create a new holding company (example: Sega Sammy Holdings), a merger between companies almost always mean the demise of one of the two companies. No new holding company was created with Index and Altus. They merged their operations, Index was the surviving company and decided to uses Atlus'name on video games in Japan for marketing reasons (but the copyright on the video games was Index Corporation). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.55.52 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but it seems that Atlus still developed games during their being-dead time, maybe the Atlus as legaly entity was disestablished, but not as functional entity? Effectively that would mean that the company survived, but is branched onto a different legal entity, which is definetly possible, and would handle it as the same company after all. On a side-note, please remember to sign your comments on talk pages by appending ~~~~. It helps me identify when you wrote what; it looks like this, just without stylization and with your credentials: Lordtobi (✉) 16:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Related-topic edit: As your reverted me again on "Sega Games Co., Ltd.", note that "Sega Games Co., Ltd." is just the full legal name of the company known as Sega, not a subsidiary or division of it. Therefore, we are forced, per WP:COMMONNAME, to use Sega in the infobox. As I want to avoid the three revert rule, please consider changing it back on your behalf. Lordtobi (✉) 13:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just point out that Template:Infobox company states that full legal name should be used in the parent field. WP:COMMONNAME doesn't override that here. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "seemingly obsessed anonymous IP editor" has decided to drop by to sort the whole Atlus/Index/Sega Dream/iXIT story that is somewhat confusing and complex.

1) Atlus Co Ltd was merged and dissolved by Index Corporation in October 2010. The brand name continued but for the company itself it was over. (Heck, Atlus's own website redirected to Index's website at the time).

2) Unlike Atlus Co Ltd, Atlus USA was not dissolved; just renamed Index Digital Media.

3) Index Corporation went bankrupted in June 2013.

4) Sega Dream is created in September 2013 and acquires the Index Corporation.

5) Sega Dream is renamed Index Corporation and dissolves the original Index Corporation that was bankrupted anyway.

6) In April 2014, Index Corporation (formerly Sega Dream) is split. It is renamed Atlus and loses its non-gaming business to a new company created the same day that takes the name of Index Corporation.

7) Index Corporation (the new company created in April 2014) is renamed iXIT in 2016.

As nonsensical as this may sound to westerners, it is very common for Japanese companies to rename themselves and then creating new companies that take their former names — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.55.52 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Different things are stated from you two currently, one says that Index Corporation (2) was split into two different parts, Index Corporation (3) and Atlus, and Index Corporation (2) is deunct, while the other states that Index Corporation (3) is simply split off of Index Corporation (2), and Index Corporation (2) is renamed Atlus, remaining active. And yes, you are right, it does sound nonsensial that a part of a company is split off and then renamed as the former company, which is then renamed something else. The different articles on the topic also confuse it the same way, wherefore I had stated prior that we need better sources. For one, secondary sources, at best, English-language secondary sources. Would you, 24.202.55.52 (or is there a name I can call you by?) and Ifte, help out in reaching for good sources? Lordtobi (✉) 13:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Index Corporation (1) is dead, Index Corporation (2) is now Atlus, Index Corporation (3) is now iXit Corporation. No company currently trades under name of "Index Corporation". As to what happened in April 2014, my guess is that Sega Holdings was never interested in Index Corporation in the first place back in 2013 and only acquired the company so that it could get Altus. Sega probably separated Atlus and Index in April 2014 so that it could eventually get rid of Index while keeping Atlus. And that's what happened. Sega sold Index Corporation to another company in 2015 and kept Atlus.

Many of the sources are in Japanese because I go a lot to the Japanese Wikipedia which obviously uses most sources in its language. But I'll see if I can find English sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.55.52 (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that me and User talk:24.202.55.52 are taking the interpretation of the Index Corporation assets within Sega Dream Corporation slightly differently, however, the one thing that's unanimously agreed is that the Index Corporation before merging with Sega and the Index Corporation that's the subsidiary of Sega are legally different companies. It's like Taito Corporation. The parent of Taito Corporation is Square Enix. Under the ownership of Taito, an Index Corporation = Sega Dream Corporation event occurred in which Taito was merged with The Game Designers Studio and then later merged with ES1 Corporation by Square Enix. As a result, legally, Taito's a completely different company from when they started (the former ES1 Corporation), but from a brand perspective, they're still the same. You can see Atlus as the same thing. Legally, they're the former Sega Dream Corporation, but from a brand perspective, they're exactly the same. As far as the Sega Games to Sega situation goes, you make a valid point. Rules are rules for a reason so I have to abide by them (and another unbeknownst rule for me too). One thing that I do need to point out is that, I've made every Sega Subsidiary company infobox as symmetrical as possible. Make changes to Atlus, you have to make similar changes to other Sega subsidiaries like Sonic Team and Sega AM2 etc. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Team infobox

Hi there LordTobi, would you be able to do a favour and edit the Sonic Team infobox correctly? there's an editor that is subjectively changing it to his liking. Basically, the issue is that, Sonic Team is known for the Nights, Pyuo Pyuo, and Phantasy Star Online franchises but he refuses to place them on and places an incorrect placeholder instead (amongst removing elements of the infobox). If you make an edit on it, it would make him understand the ideal format. Cheers Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 13:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Iftekharahmed96: I have this talk page on my watchlist. How about you discuss this with me rather than trying to get other editors to do your dirty work? --The1337gamer (talk) 13:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, than do you propose should happen? Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 13:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We are discussing this on your talk page, so we can continue doing that. Why are you trying to get another editor to revert my edits and act as if that is an okay thing to do? --The1337gamer (talk) 13:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because I want to get an objective overview on how to solve this charade. I always invite a third party whenever there is an edit conflict to see what the best course of action is. And how do you know that Lordtobi will revert my edit? He may give an explanation as to why I am in the wrong. Wikipedia is a community based website, embrace that aspect. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You requested an uninvolved editor to start edit warring with me. You didn't request for them to contribute to the discussion. An incredibly immature and naive thing to, especially when I'm watching the editor's talk page that you turn to. --The1337gamer (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You talk about immaturity but you are the one throwing names at me: ironic is it not? Look, I didn't talk to LordTobi for him to stroke my ego, or to say "I am right and you're wrong!". I talked to him separately so he can have an outsiders perspective of how to solve this situation. Clearly, if you believe that he will "edit war" with you, then how are you going to prove your point? Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think he would edit war with me. But I think you wanted him to do just that. The way you phrased your request to him made it sound very biased towards pushing you're own agenda.--The1337gamer (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the wording, it says "edit the Sonic Team infobox correctly?". I never said that he should revert your edit to my edit. There's a clear difference in intentions. Look, I don't even care at this point if I'm in the wrong with the edit and revert edits, you're being very difficult to come to a consensus with by throwing labels at me to justify your edits. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe look at the wording yourself. You asked him to edit it correctly, then proceeded to call my revision incorrect. You were pushing him to revert me. --The1337gamer (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop changing Sega to Sega Games Co, Ltd. in the Sonic Team page The1337gamer, you're going against the WP:COMMONNAME rule. And don't use the excuse that "It's my rule" because it isn't. It's a rule explicitly stated on Wikipedia. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read the WP:COMMONNAME page. What does is say at the very top of the page? It says Wikipedia:Article titles: "This page is about the policy for article titles." It says nothing about infobox parameters. I already commented on the discussion above ([1]), pointing out to LordTobi that he was mistaken to think that WP:COMMONNAME overrides the infobox doc. The full legal name should be used in the parent paremater in the infobox. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying. This inconsistency is getting me fed up though. There's no point of having a default format if it's not going to be followed properly. It's not fair on me to follow a rule on one article only for it to be over-ridden on a similar article. I'll change all the parent company titles to Sega Games Co, Ltd for the Sega gaming subsidiaries. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Lordtobi. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move of Gawker Media to Gizmodo Media Group

Can you please explain why you moved Gawker Media to Gizmodo Media Group here? There was an extensive discussion on the talk page and consensus was that this should not be done. I would suggest in the future you read talk page before performing a move that may be contentious. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I only saw that the company was renamed in my newsfeed the other day, and remember that was an article and that it should be updated; seeing that the in-article stuff was already done, I did the last thing which would be renaming the article. It was taken to my notice that there was any discussion ongoing, so the move seemed logical. I did check out the talk page, after being told so. I check at New York's DoS company databse, and truly Gizmodo Media Group, LLC was just founded on March 2, 2016. News site really should get their information sorted out before addressing the public. Please excuse me for the inconvenience. Lordtobi (✉) 13:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dontnod Eleven

FWIW, I declined the speedy on Dontnod Eleven, since Dontnod Entertainment says it's their sister studio.[2] If this redirect needs to be deleted, probably best to bring it up at WP:RFD--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 30 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Space Station Silicon Valley page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 1 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Plague Inc. page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilink examples for companies that move between countries

Hi @Lordtobi. I'm not sure I understand your edit summary on your recent edit. I don't understand why if a company moves from one country to another, one should wikilink the name of the country in the founded field in the infobox.

My edit was intended to make the example conform with the guidelines of the Manual of style. More specifically, there is a consensus that it is always preferable to only wikilink the most specific place, and not its state/province and country (unless of course, there is no article for the most specific place). For an entry where only the name of a country appears, of course, there is no problem with wikilinking it. My Gussie (talk) 01:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please desist

As far as I can recall, my only interactions with you stem from when you come to an article either in draft or to which I have contributed significantly, and you subsequently fiddle around with white space, citation format, minor elements that have little import outside of making the article harder to edit for those actually writing it. You've been around a while, so I would think that you already know that the community frowns upon small edits that distract from writing actual content, and I'm certain that you know that when your changes are reverted, they should go to discussion on the talk page rather than a reversion to the ones you like (edit warring). I'd like to ask that you desist from these sorts of edits in general, especially if they are unwelcome on any single article, but if for whatever reason you are not amenable, please desist at a minimum from these edits on articles I am writing. I would prefer to not waste that time with discussions like this. czar 00:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rockstar Agent

Hi. I'm admin of one local fan groups about Rockstar Games Agent. I saw you added new cover for Agent on wiki page. Do you have any special reasons for that, i mean do you have any idea what's going with project, or you did it just because?

@@ Line 125: / Line 125: @@
 As far as I can recall, my only interactions with you stem from when you come to an article either in draft or to which I have contributed significantly, and you subsequently fiddle around with white space, citation format, minor elements that have little import outside of making the article harder to edit for those actually writing it. You've been around a while, so I would think that you already know that the community frowns upon small edits that distract from writing actual content, and I'm certain that you know that when your changes are reverted, they should go to discussion on the talk page rather than a reversion to the ones you like (edit warring). I'd like to ask that you desist from these sorts of edits in general, especially if they are unwelcome on any single article, but if for whatever reason you are not amenable, please desist at a minimum from these edits on articles I am writing. I would prefer to not waste that time with discussions like this. <span style="background:#F0F0FF; padding:3px 9px 4px">[[User talk:Czar|<span style='font:bold small-caps 1.2em Avenir;color:#B048B5'>czar</span>]]</span> 00:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
+== Rockstar Agent ==
+Hi. I'm admin of one local fan groups about Rockstar Games Agent. I saw you added new cover for Agent on wiki page.
+Do you have any special reasons for that, i mean do you have any idea what's going with project, or you did it just because?