Jump to content

Talk:Activision Blizzard: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Alex0190 (talk | contribs)
21 edits
Line 57: Line 57:


The infobox looks terrible with a description of the logo there. I am taking the description out of the infobox, and adding a new section about the logo in the body of the article, if you feel such a clarification of the logo is needed. Otherwise, since the logo's derivation is self-explanatory, perhaps no discussion at all is needed. So either a new section in the body, or no discussion at all. [[User:ApplePieRising|ApplePieRising]] ([[User talk:ApplePieRising|talk]]) 08:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
The infobox looks terrible with a description of the logo there. I am taking the description out of the infobox, and adding a new section about the logo in the body of the article, if you feel such a clarification of the logo is needed. Otherwise, since the logo's derivation is self-explanatory, perhaps no discussion at all is needed. So either a new section in the body, or no discussion at all. [[User:ApplePieRising|ApplePieRising]] ([[User talk:ApplePieRising|talk]]) 08:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

== Profit shifting and tax ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians. Full disclosure, I work for TaxWatch UK.

In August 2019, we published a [https://www.taxwatchuk.org/activision_blizzard_tax_avoidance/ report] explaining how Activision Blizzard shifted €5bn to companies in Bermuda and Barbados between 2013-2017. This shifting of profits using royalty payments to tax haven companies is the same scheme used by Google, which has been heavily criticised by MPs.

This report was picked up by multiple outlets, including GamesIndustry and The Sunday Times,

I would like for a small section to be included on the Activision Blizzard Wikipedia page. However, given the conflict of interest, I believe that someone else should make that edit.

Happy to answer any questions on the report.

Thanks,

Alex [[User:Alex0190|Alex0190]] ([[User talk:Alex0190|talk]]) 11:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:21, 18 November 2019

Conflict of interest with Patenplays

I would just like to note that the editor who has added the bulk of the worlds lawsuit over the years (since 2014), is an SPA for Worlds. Please see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Patentplays, and consider disallowing all their live edits to the page, and requesting they utitilize this talk page to bring up their requests. Earflaps (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to remove the entire addition, as it seems to have little to specifically do with Activision Blizzard and heavy jargon that really isn't pertinent to this article, but was reverted. -- ferret (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like someone doesn't understand the difference between subsidiaries and divisions

Unfortunately, User:Earflaps made a bunch of inexplicable edits in March 2016 that indicate a lack of understanding of the difference between subsidiaries and divisions. A subsidiary is a legal entity that is owned in part or in whole by another entity. A division is merely a business unit within an existing business but not a separate legal entity.

Any objections before I clean up this mess? --Coolcaesar (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolcaesar: Earflaps is blocked as a sock as well as undisclosed paid editing, go for it. -- ferret (talk) 23:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Activision Blizzard. 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) 07:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Improving article

Hi fellow editors, I noticed that considering the size and importance of this company, the article leaves much to be desired. I have some ideas on how to make some improvements, and wonder if anyone would like to take part, and not just revert edits, which I notice happens a lot, but to add to the article as far as content and structure. I would like to begin with a separate section on the company's venture into film production. What say you? ApplePieRising (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ApplePieRising, you're free at any point to expand the article as long as you are familar with Wikipedia's content guidelines (such as sourcing, no original research, neutral lanuage). If Activision Blizzard has a notable film production arm, surely there are secondary sources on the matter you can expand the article with. However, given that an article for that subsid already exists, try to keep it concise here. If you need any help, you can consult other editors, such as myself, at any given time. Lordtobi (✉) 11:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Lordtobi for your help and encouragement. I hope you agree that the page is a little easier to read now, and has more sources to support the content. I worked with the content that was already there as much as possible, and only added clarifying, or essential information that had been missing. Not everyone is a video game aficionado, and I think some clarifying language adds to the understanding of the content. Thanks for any feedback and quality control, but I would appreciate if you did not simply revert everything, which is very disheartening. ApplePieRising (talk) 10:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just went on to the Activision Blizzard Studios page for the first time to see how much redundancy there is with this page, and I was surprised to see how little is actually on that page. I dont think there is any need to keep the content on the main page here overly "concise." I think my additions on this page are not at all redundant with the so-called "full article" which is really not particularly "full." I hope you agree. ApplePieRising (talk) 10:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ApplePieRising, we usually keep content concise on non-main pages because the main pages contain the majority of the content. This is the inverse here, for some reason. Please transplant the content you added to this page to the Activision Blizzard Studios article and add a short summary here instead. This will better comply with Wikipedia's standards. Lordtobi (✉) 13:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lordtobi Good suggestion, I just dont have time this moment. I hope I can get to this later this week. ApplePieRising (talk) 08:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ApplePieRising, I've gone ahead annd transplanted the content. If you would like to expand it further, be sure to edit the main article first. Lordtobi (✉) 08:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Activision Blizzard Studios

I decided to start a new section, all the colons were making me crazy. Thanks for moving over the content Lordtobi. However, I think the content on the main page concerning the movie studio can stand to be a little more developed than what is left, while the content on the "studios" page can also be developed more. There is plenty of information on line. When the holidays are over I hope to expand both. There seems to be plenty of information on-line that would be of interest to Wiki readers. I hope you agree. Happy Holidays!! ApplePieRising (talk) 09:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interactive Entertainment company

I think it is important, when describing the company in the opening sentence of the article, that we use words that are as accurate as possible. Therefore, I believe, and I hope you will see my POV, that the company is much more than a video game holding company, since it is involved in film-making and esports, etc. and a better description is the broader "Interactive Entertainment." I am changing the description back to this. ApplePieRising (talk) 07:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ApplePieRising, "interactive entertainment" and "video game [industry]" are basically synonymous (the referenced HuffPost article also describes the video game industry), and the former does not cover motion picture production, while both cover esports. First and foremost, Activision Blizzard is a holding company: all major operations are "outsourced" to its subsidiaries. Furthermore, "video game X company" is the standard nomenclature that is understood by most and used most frequently in the project, so I see no need not to use it. I'm amending the sentence to reflect this properly. Lordtobi (✉) 08:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox looks terrible with a description of the logo there. I am taking the description out of the infobox, and adding a new section about the logo in the body of the article, if you feel such a clarification of the logo is needed. Otherwise, since the logo's derivation is self-explanatory, perhaps no discussion at all is needed. So either a new section in the body, or no discussion at all. ApplePieRising (talk) 08:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Profit shifting and tax

Hello fellow Wikipedians. Full disclosure, I work for TaxWatch UK.

In August 2019, we published a report explaining how Activision Blizzard shifted €5bn to companies in Bermuda and Barbados between 2013-2017. This shifting of profits using royalty payments to tax haven companies is the same scheme used by Google, which has been heavily criticised by MPs.

This report was picked up by multiple outlets, including GamesIndustry and The Sunday Times,

I would like for a small section to be included on the Activision Blizzard Wikipedia page. However, given the conflict of interest, I believe that someone else should make that edit.

Happy to answer any questions on the report.

Thanks,

Alex Alex0190 (talk) 11:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Activision_Blizzard&oldid=926737529"