Talk:Psygnosis

Link to Archived discussions before Psygnosis was merged into this page

Aquisition

Sony bought them in 93? is that really true? cause they released wipeout for the saturn and n64 way after this date...--VVikipedia343 (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Games developed as Psygnosis

I saw Lemmings and knew that these games were DMA developed, not Psygnosis, so I randomly clicked on a few other games and saw that a lot of the games in this list of 'developed' games were actually published by Psygnosis. I changed the list title to 'Games developed or published as Psygnosis'. Maybe someone else would like to separate the list into developed/published tables, as I can't be bothered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.31.15 (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Split of Psygnosis

SCE Studio Liverpool and Psygnosis is the same company. Psygnosis evolved into SCE Studio Liverpool. Should the Psygnosis phase of the company's life be split out into its own article? - X201 (talk) 14:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC) Reworded for neutrality per WP:RFC instruction #2 -- Trevj (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Psygnosis was a notable developer in its own right, so I've split out the content again. The merge proposal (2008) was apparently undertaken (2009) without any discussion or consensus. -- Trevj (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games § Psygnosis/SCE Studio Liverpool

-- Trevj (talk) 23:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Split. And I unsplit it. I really see no need to split the history of the organization into two articles or pretend they are two different organizations before and after the name change. The article is not so large as to require a split, and splitting out the early history leaves a pathetically small SCE Studio Liverpool article. Furthermore, you should really build consensus for these moves rather than doing them unilaterally. I realize they were merged without any discussion, but that happened years ago and has not been contested since until now, so the de facto state is one article. Now, if you can build consensus at the project here for splitting, I will certainly not fight that. Indrian (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I think a split can be justified. Psygnosis has a very long history, and could stand alone - I think people searching for SCE Studio Liverpool are more interested in their current state, and not their history. Trevj, I think you need to do some work on these articles to make them flow and navigate well before making the split though, it'd avoid any long winded discussion here if you did. - hahnchen 21:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

If one follows that logic to its conclusion, then no article about an extant organization should have a history section because anyone looking for Ford Motor Company or Microsoft or Sears or any other company is interested in its current state and not its history. If the article were so long that it needed a separate history section, that could certainly be a justified split, but as it stands, the article itself is pretty short. Psygnosis and SCE Studio Liverpool are the exact same organization that has merely undergone a name change. That said, however, I am not against two different articles if the SCE Studio Liverpool article retains a complete overview of the company's existence as Psygnosis and a separate article merely goes into more detail. Trevj, however, just took all of the Psygnosis material out of the SCE Liverpool article, which is unacceptable. I have to ask though: do you really think a 20k article requires some of its material be split into a separate article? Indrian (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as the initial merge was boldly undertaken without discussion, per WP:BRD the recent split could technically be considered a revert. Therefore this discussion should be continued with reference to the content of both articles when SCE Studio Liverpool was created, and back to the nearest approximation of that now. The Psygnosis content within SCE Studio Liverpool is given undue weight otherwise. And, in fact, SCE Studio Liverpool possibly isn't that notable itself except as part of the larger SCE Worldwide Studios! Therefore, I'm splitting again, per WP:NTEMP. Sorry to be a pain but I argue that we need to achieve consensus for the merger, not consensus for the split, which was the initial state of affairs. (Things may have been different if the Psygnosis article had been moved to SCE Studio Liverpool rather than a separate article being created.) -- Trevj (talk) 00:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, first, a change after what three years? Is not a revert, so stuff the self-righteous attitude. Furthermore, you yourself admit that there was a merge proposed for months with no objections. Therefore, the person who merged was well within his or her rights. The merge proposal banner was properly applied to the pages in question, so if anyone wanted to object to the merger at the time on the talk page, they had three months to do so. There is a difference between merging without inviting discussion and merging after a proposal was put forward and no one decided it was worth discussing. The merge edit was also clearly labelled, so again, if anyone had cared they could have reverted it three years ago. We are supposed to assume good faith around wikipedia, and I am going to do so, but when you propose a major change after three years, call it a revert, try to claim that the initial merge was undertaken without a chance for discussion, and then decide to try for an edit war instead of a discussion after someone calls you on this on the talk page, I have to wonder what is going through your mind.

Second, you cannot have an undue weight issue when you are talking about the depth of coverage in an article covering the chronological history of a subject. Undue weight specifically goes to wikipedia's neutral point of view policy stating that all major views on an issue need to be covered. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether an article discusses one part of a subject at greater length than another. Wikipedia is a work in progress. If one part of a topic is covered in greater depth than another, it is an invitation to fill in the holes with future edits, not a violation of the neutrality policy. Also, the company had a longer history under the Psygnosis name, so of course its going to have more information on that period. Your argument is like saying the current article on Katharine Hepburn, to use today's featured article as an example, has a balance issue because the section on her early life is dwarfed by the multiple sections on her career. Its one subject. SCE Liverpool is Psygnosis. Is this somehow confusing to you? Sure the company has gained and shed satellite studios over time and been shuttled around various Sony entities as the parent company has changed its organization and strategy, but you can trace a direct line from the company founded in the 1980s to the Liverpool studio that exists today. But don't take my word for it, here is Sony's own webpage that says the same thing I just told you. Also, if SCE Liverpool is not notable, than neither is Psygnosis because they are the same entity. Are you really trying to argue for a lack of notability for this company? Indrian (talk) 00:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Indrian. Undue weight refers to giving a view or position on an issue undue representation within an article, not discussing one part of something more than another, so there is no issue with that here. Psygnosis is SCE Studio Liverpool; the fact that the name changed or that they gained a new parent company does not change that and thus does not justify a separate Psygnosis article in its own right. There certainly may be good reason to split Psygnosis off if the history section is expanded sufficiently (which is certainly plausible), but there really is no good reason to do so now (IMHO). Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 01:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for raising a number of points. I'd prefer to avoid an edit war too so I'm not reverting again now. Regrding WP:UNDUE, perhaps I've misunderstood its apparent exclusivity to NPOV. However, it could be inferred from An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. that the depth of coverage of a company's past could legitimately exist in a separate article if over-represented in the parent article. Anyway, as my viewpoint is currently in the minority and my motivations are not understood, (although it's been acknowledged by others that there may be a justification for a separate article) I'll go away and have a think. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 07:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The concerns raised in that part of the policy relate to coverage of obscure or isolated events as well as avoiding recentism. I see no indication of the former, and the latter is the exact opposite of your argument that we should trim past events from this article. Anyway, both of these concerns relate to whether specific types of material should be covered on wikipedia at all, not whether they should be put in a separate article. Again, that policy is about making sure that an article does not attach significance to events or opinions that do not deserve that attention and therefore introduce bias and compromise the neutrality of the piece. As you are not advocating removal of material from wikipedia entirely, this policy really does not apply. Indrian (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The bulk of the article is about Psygnosis, not Studio Liverpool. In articles where the corporate history would overwhelm the recent history and current operations, we'd split it out into a history article. For those articles, people searching for the history and the current status of the companies would have to go to the parent article, such as Microsoft and navigate from there. However, as there is a name change, and two distinct phases of the company, someone searching for Psygnosis is much more likely to be after the company's history. I mentioned above that had Trevj followed the summary style and worked on the article instead of just cut/paste, I don't think we'd need to have this discussion. One article would be about the independent publisher, the other would be about a Sony internal development studio. - hahnchen 16:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that if a separate Psygnosis article is to exist, a summary style section should be included within SCE Studio Liverpool. I'd be prepared to ensure the basics are summarised, for others to amend as they see fit. -- Trevj (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong: the entire article is about Studio Liverpool because it is the exact same company. I am unsure why this appears to be confusing some people. As to having two different names: that's why we have redirects. There is no search problem here. This is a 20k article, a split is not needed on size grounds, and I have yet to see a valid policy reason given for why a split should be undertaken. The Microsoft article you mention is three times the size of this one with a subordinate History of Microsoft page that is over double the size of this article. Furthermore, despite having a separate history article, the main Microsoft page still contains a history section that is almost as large as this entire article. This article is quite simply not on that scale. If and when this article exceeds the recommended maximum wikipedia article length, then we can figure out the best way to split it. Until then, I have not seen a compelling reason based in policy to do so. Indrian (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

And I've yet to see a viable policy given for why a split shouldn't be undertaken.

• Psygnosis and SCE Studio Liverpool are the exact same organization that has merely undergone a name change.

  Really? Do they still employ largely the same programmers (who may be notable themselves)? Is the management the same? Did they retain the inherited business strategy?

• If the article were so long that it needed a separate history section, that could certainly be a justified split, but as it stands, the article itself is pretty short.

  There are plenty of stubs on Wikipedia, and article length isn't the only justification for splitting. The issue is notability. And I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that Psygnosis as a separate (prior existing) entity was not notable. Notability is not temporary, which means that we don't have to merge articles when companies merge through acquisitons etc.

• [...] I am not against two different articles if the SCE Studio Liverpool article retains a complete overview of the company's existence as Psygnosis and a separate article merely goes into more detail. Trevj, however, just took all of the Psygnosis material out of the SCE Liverpool article, which is unacceptable.

  So, rather than us all waste all this time and effort discussing this, why not either fix it or kindly ask me if I intend to include a summary, per WP:SS?

• stuff the self-righteous attitude

  I think that was uncalled for.

• try to claim that the initial merge was undertaken without a chance for discussion

  I tried to claim nothing of the sort. I said that it wasn't discussed, not that there was no chance for it to be discussed. I don't know what the merge policy was back in 2008 (and, frankly, am not inclined to check now). However, the current policy is that a rationale be included, with the proposer explaining this in a new section on the destination talk page. This doesn't seem to have been done, and no one else seems to have discussed it either. Therefore, it wasn't discussed.

-- Trevj (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Fine, show me a source that indicates that on the very day that Psygnosis became SCE Liverpool that Sony also fired all the programmers, changed all the managers, and officially wrapped up the old entity and created a new one. Until you can do that, I am going to take Sony's word that they are the same company over yours. I have provided a source to back up my assertion, so your unsubstantiated opinion does not matter in the least on that point. Also, your attempts to employ notability are not pertinent to the discussion. They are the same company as demonstrated through reliable sources. Of course the company is notable, that is why it has an article that has not been challenged for deletion on those grounds. Psygnosis is not something different from SCE Liverpool. I don't know how to put that in language that is more simple or provide sources that are more authoritative and straightforward on that point. The article covers the entire history of the company precisely because the entire history is notable. No one is attempting to erase the Psygnosis material from wikipedia. That would be a notability fight; this is not. If you want to keep making notability arguments, you may want to look up the definition of straw man first. You want to take a small article and create two smaller articles out of it, thereby dividing content that covers the exact same topic. You need a good justification for that. Size would be a good justification if this were a large article, but it is not. Why turn the SCE Liverpool article into something little bigger than a stub? And why try to insist that they are different companies? So far, you seem to be the only person contributing to this discussion that has an agenda. So I will ask you straight out, how does breaking this information up make wikipedia a better place? Indrian (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose split: Trevj, Your first point about employees is nonsense. It is the same company, Wikipedia is not bothered about the identity of employees, the business strategy or any other business dealings. If they decided to stop making video games and become a dairy specialising in Yak milk. It wouldn't affect the article. Because it would still be the same company. Notability has nothing to do with this discussion. Notability is concerned with whether the subject warrants coverage in Wikipedia. That is not at issue here. Regarding the content, The article is poorly sourced. I'll tag it appropriately later. Regarding the move, you state current policy and then apply it to the merge that happened 3 years ago?! Sorry, my time machine wasn't working back then. I merged the article because, both articles were, to be blunt, piss-poor. The Studio Liverpool article was thin and weak, and Psygnosis had no references (and is still in that same state some 3 years later). I merged the articles because they are the same company and it was only a matter of time before Psygnosis would have been tagged and deleted. They stood a better chance of surviving together. And I've been proved right. - X201 (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Trevj, make it easy. Just work on the Psygnosis article until it totally unbalances the article. Then split it. No one's going to oppose you if you do serious work on improving it. No one would really oppose that, take a look at Relocation of professional sports teams and see what happens when a company moves location. - hahnchen 19:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. If Trevj wants to improve the article by adding high quality and well-sourced information, I am all for that. If he can find enough information of this quality that the article exceeds the recommended wikipedia article length and the possibility exists of creating two articles of a healthy size to contain this information, I am all for a split that occurs at a logical breaking point in the narrative (which would most likely be when Psygnosis was purchased by Sony as opposed to when the studio name was changed, though we would not know for sure until we saw the finished product) with this article merely becoming a summary. If Trevj cares this much about Psygnosis, I imagine improving the article would be a much better use of his time than engaging in this kind of debate. Indrian (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I may add to and improve to the articles at some point, but TBH it's not a high priority for me (or to many others participating in this discussion, or you'd have done it yourselves). For the record, there is no "agenda" here on my behalf. My only interest in Psygnosis is that I enjoyed playing some of their games on my brother's Amiga in the '80s & '90s! When I saw that the article had been redirected, I was somewhat surprised. Upon further inspection I found that it had been redirected without discussion. (Have a look at the histories of NTL Incorporated and Virgin Media to see what can happen when editors confuse a business acquisition with a need for article merging - an extreme case there, and obviously on a much grander scale than what we're looking at here). So, anyway, that's why I split it out.

Anyway, I spent 10 minutes searching the net (although probably disproportionately more time composing and typing this) and found the following:

• http://www.joystiq.com/2010/01/28/sony-restructuring-studio-liverpool/
• http://www.siliconera.com/2010/01/29/sony-computer-entertainment-restructuring-studio-liverpool/
• http://thegamershub.net/2011/09/blast-from-the-past-g-police/
• http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Psygnosis (not WP:RS, I know)
• http://uk.ps3.ign.com/articles/121/1216264p1.html
• http://www.assemblergames.com/forums/showthread.php?25871-Studio-Liverpool-shut-down&s=2d1b86af0229d44176d5dc012f615af5&p=399523&viewfull=1#post399523 (again not RS, and before anyone asks, no I'd not visited that forum before it came up in the search engine and no I have no COI issues whatsoever)
• http://www.gamespasm.com/2010/10/20/wipeout-dev-seeks-designer-with-racing-game-experience/

Psygonsis is clearly the notable company, and a redirect from SCE Studio Liverpool to the former company should arguably be in place. The Psygnosis article should contain content from the 'Acquisition by Sony (1993-2001)' section. The 'Studio Liverpool (2001-present)' content is legitimate content for either the SCE Studio Liverpool article (or an article on the larger Sony entity, if notability isn't established for the Liverpool studio).

1. I don't believe it is necessary for the articles to be substantially improved before they are split. Where is the policy, please, which specifically states this?
2. Indeed, I think it would be less confusing for other potential editors (and hence conducive to building the content, which is after all why we are here) who wish to improve either or both articles if they were to be split without further delay.

-- Trevj (talk) 05:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The NTL/Telewest/Virgin rearrangement was a totally different situation to this article and bears no similarity to it whatsoever, even before the principle of WP:OTHERSTUFF is applied. You still mention notability. Notability has nothing to do with this discussion. Notability is for deletion debates. You say "if notability isn't established for the Liverpool studio", it already is notable, notability does not need to be established for either article. This is a discussion about a page split. - X201 (talk) 07:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

And Other stuff exists states When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. Trouble arises when legitimate comparisons, either by analogy with existing or non-existing article kinds, are disregarded without thought or consideration of the Wikipedia:Five pillars. The comparison was not used by me incorrectly, and this isn't a deletion discussion anyway. As for the NTL/Telewest/Virgin situation itself, it clearly has similarities with the case here, although I do acknowledge that this one is on a considerably smaller scale.

Again, where is the policy, please, which specifically states that it is necessary for articles to be substantially improved before they are split ? -- Trevj (talk) 08:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It has no similarities. It was a 3 company reverse merger takeover with total re-branding. - X201 (talk) 10:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

For someone with no agenda, you are sure being disruptive. Attempting to put a notability tag on this article is just the most recent example. Good discussion is one thing, but continually skirting WP:POINT with splits, tags, and edit summary comments is something else again. I am going to say this one more time, though I do not know why I have to at this point. Once upon a time, there was a company called Psygnosis. Then it was purchased by Sony and made a development studio. Then the name was changed. One entity. Like any organization that has existed for over thirty years it has changed over time, but the original 1984 company is still around as SCE Liverpool. There is no notability debate. Psygnosis cannot be more notable than SCE Liverpool because they are the same thing. All of those news articles you linked to agree with the position I just articulated. Please tell me why this is so confusing so I can try to explain it even more simply for you if needed.

As for improving the article before a split, you seem determined to misunderstand that line of thought as well. Since the history/organization/practices/etc. of a single company fits within the scope of a single article on said company and this article is only 20K a split is not needed on size grounds and would in fact be harmful because wikipedia is nearly always better served by one decent sized article on a topic than several really small articles on the same topic. If through improving the article it became so large that a split was necessary on said grounds, then no one would be against you on that. Taking that idea and stating that someone here has said that an article needs to be improved before a split is yet another example of your obfuscation and (perhaps deliberate) twisting of every discussion point and wikipedia policy you can lay your hands on. I am simply astounded this conversation is still happening. If you cannot come up with anything more than a spurious notability argument or an undue weight argument that warps that policy beyond recognition then please stop this pointless crusade of yours. These policies and concepts have been patiently explained to you by three different users here now, and having to repeat the same points over and over is getting really tedious. Indrian (talk) 11:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the notability tag, the source added by X201 is helpful but is of course a primary source. Never mind about notability of this article for the moment though. Thanks for summarising the company's history for me (although I think I was just about able to have worked that out already). Thanks also for the thoughtful offer of further explanation, which is welcome but completely unnecessary. Psygnosis cannot be more notable than SCE Liverpool because they are the same thing. In that case, the latter cannot be more notable than the former either! Based on the merger/acquisition arguments, perhaps someone would think that merging Sinclair Research into Amstrad would be a wise move! (I don't think I'd be alone in opposing that, if I happened to randomly spot such a proposal... again, my proposal here was based upon almost randomly happening across the article and there is no agenda or crusade, just a difference of opinion). wikipedia is nearly always better served by one decent sized article on a topic than several really small articles on the same topic. Is that a policy? As for the accusation of my actions being disruptive, the same could reasonably be levelled at others here. I think the sensible thing to do now is take a break and see whether any of us (or anyone else) actually either improves the article(s) or has any other ideas/actions over the next 3 months (suggested timescale for retention of the split tag, based on discussions above about that time period being ample for others to contest the original merge). Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for you last post. It makes it perfectly clear to everyone that you are being deliberate awkward and are attempting to game the system. Sinclair and Amstrad were two separate companies, Amstrad merely purchased the products and brand name from Sinclair Research, they didn't purchase the company, but you probably already knew that as well. Seeing as you are so insistent on everything being done by the book, I urge all people involved in this discussion to place an OPPOSE or SUPPORT vote in this thread to express their opinions about the proposed split, because obviously you will abide by a consensus decision in three months time. - X201 (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I honestly expect I will, provided no one has any reason to believe that there has been any gaming of the system, of course. In any case, you'll hopefully be reassured to learn that I can't imagine a final scenario arising whereby I'd make any bold changes here against the future consensus. Thanks -- Trevj (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Targeted redirect from Psygnosis to 'Psygnosis (1984-1993)' section

I am becoming confused by my complete failure to comprehend how this edit of mine to introduce a targeted redirect could possibly be considered controversial! Just how, exactly, can it make no sense?

1. Comparable edits happen all over Wikipedia
2. They're described in the WP:TARGET guideline
3. It's a perfectly reasonable assumption that the vast majority of inbound links from other articles to Psygnosis (namely the articles on games written before the Sony Computer Entertainment ownership) should be redirected to the relevant section because it's the original company which developed the game.

I agree that Its also not [my] job to decide what users are interested in regarding a particular article. But you must surely accept that it's not your job to do so either. That's how consensus works: it's not about crushing others' opinions with your own (I guess you don't do this all over the wiki or you wouldn't still be here, so what's the issue with this particular article?), it's sometimes about leaving others' (non-controversial) edits in place for a while (I don't consider barely 60 minutes to be long enough) to see whether anyone else shares your opinion and carries out the edit/revert/whatever you're thinking of. Under normal circumstances I'd assume good faith in that such actions could be based on hasty decisions, misunderstandings of how we work, newbies, etc. etc. But because this is a repeat of similar editing practices which have recently been discussed (although you seem to be an experienced editor) I think I'm perfectly within my rights to remind you, Indrian specifically, of the policy regarding ownership of articles. I'm now reverting in order to reinstate the redirects, per WP:TARGET.

By way of clarity, the article in question relates to the State of Psygnosis. You may have inadvertently become confused with the State of Palestine.

I'll say it again: these were non-controversial edits, the kind of which take place largely uncontested all over Wikipedia. While merrily editing my way through the Wikipedia world, I somehow seem to have opened the wrong door and ended up in what could be loosely described as resembling a real-life reenactment of The Argument Sketch.

It would be extremely helpful to have further input from uninvolved editors. (I hope we can agree on at least that one final point.) -- Trevj (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Do you even read policies before you mangle them? The very first sentence of WP:TARGET says thus: "Most redirects are untargeted, i.e. they lead simply to a page, not to any specific section of the page. This is usually done when there is more than one possible name under which an article might be sought." As SCE Liverpool and Psygnosis are the same company as has already long been established, the company may be searched for under both of those names, so WP"TARGET gives a preference for an untrageted redirect. TARGET applies when the redirected material is only covered in a specific section of the article as in the Malia Obama example included with that policy. Also, that you would claim anyone but you is claiming ownership of the article is astounding. No one has attempted to change the staus quo on this article in three years except for you. Consensus is currently running against you on the split you attempted and you have added spurious tags, snarky edit summaries, and sarcastic talk page comments throughout this discussion. If your disruptive behavior does not stop, further remedial actions may need to be taken. Indrian (talk) 13:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

  Hi again. Have you seen Don't drink the consensus Kool-Aid and Don't revert due solely to "no consensus"? Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've requested a third opinion on this. -- Trevj (talk) 14:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)