Talk:Sega

Chequeboard design

There is a feature that runs through the Sonic games and has occurred in some other Sega games eg Super Monkey Ball Sega Superstars Tennis- a chequeboard design in 2 different colours. This may sound of limited interest but it is a highly relevant feature of some Sega games as far as I am concerned as the design greatly helps to accentuate the sense of speed integral to those games. I have always considered it as somewhat a hallmark of Sega's identity ever since Sonic the hedgehog.

Criticisms

Do you think we should start a small criticisms and controversies section, not to bash Sega but to give a more well rounded opinion. Of course they wouldn't be our criticisms, just general critcisms from citable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.11.177 (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

i agree, there have been many controversies surrounding Sega's decisins and the way that Sega promoted Genesis (Genesis does what Nintendont) has been critisised a lot. Generally, Segas adds were always controversial and Sega made a lot of wrong decisions which caused Sega to stop being succesful in N.America & Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.73.214.152 (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it needs a really good once-over, because there are some grammar issues and the organization of information is somewhat questionable. I just tried to clean up the Dreamcast section. 66.253.218.130 (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I would still ask you to insert a "controversies" section.
A lot of Companies in the Video Game industrie have them and more even should. SEGA is one of the biggest in the industrie and so should have their controversies referenced because (imho) it matters due to their influence/presence. Other video game industrie articles with controversy-pages are: Electronic Arts, BioWare, Blizzard Entertainment.
Capcom even only has one single instance in it - so even for one controversy such a section is viable. Ninjason (talk) 13:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

pre-Dreamcast era R&D stucture

Is there a way to better integrate the earlier SEGA R&D stucture? The AM numbering and studio fiefdom structures are really only reflective of Dreamcast era Sega, and sorts of skirts over the strict arcade and consumer R&D divisions the company had in the 1980s to the mid 1990s. There's also no mention of Japanese studios which Sega was was formerly invested in in such as RED Entertainment, Gau Entertainment/Nextech, Sims, C.R.I. (which was folded into AM2), Access Games or others.

multi-million-selling franchises

It's in the head paragraph. I am thinking about replacing it with "highly successful", "Popular","Highly Rated" or some variation of all three. UNLESS someone actually sees a reason to leave it there. Multi-million selling does not really mean much. Shenmue was a multi-million selling "franchise" and it technically was a commercial failure. BUT, it is a popular game, and it had good ratings. Another example would be Phantasy Star, which got high ratings, was also successful, and was popular as well.

Keep in mind I am posting this since I know Sega is a very popular company and I know they have a very proud following.AustralianPope (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I just threw that in there to match a similar statement at Capcom and a far more extensive list of games at Konami, not because I take any pride in the works produced by employees of companies whose products I have enjoyed in the past. "Highly successful" and "popular" are more vague than the current language, not that I care enough to fight you here. Shenmue wouldn't be ideal since it only had two entries and will probably never be seen again (least likely of all from Sega-Sammy). As I see it, Sonic was Sega's 16-bit flagship title and remains their current mascot, Virtua Fighter was their top developers' killer app during the fifth generation and remains their most critically acclaimed and influential arcade game, and Yakuza is modern Sega's defining franchise. (Nagoshi is clearly the best developer they have left.) Sega has been expanding in the West with mobile and PC games, and Total War is the most prestigious of the bunch. As for Phantasy Star, it may not be Sega's best RPG, but it certainly is their longest-running and most important.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

That actually makes a lot of sense, the current wording better represents the spectrum of Sega titles. Sergecross73 msg me 18:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Financial information for fiscal year ending 2014-03-31

In case anyone would find this information useful for expanding the article, here's Sega's full year results. Most of this year's profits owes to its pachinko business, and its top selling video game was Total War: Rome II at 1.13 million copies. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed mass deletion

I have reverted Tripple-ddd's proposed trimming and reorganization of this article. On my talk page, Tripple-ddd explained their changes, stating that Sega v. Accolade "has it's own article" and therefore does not merit coverage here, the statement that Sonic the Hedgehog 2 is Sega's best-selling game "is not accurate anymore", and the excessively detailed 2005–present section should be summarized with "official milestones featured on their website and statements from annual investor reports from Sega Sammy Holdings". To which I reply: Sega v. Accolade is certainly an interesting and significant part of Sega's history, I'm not sure what more recent game supposedly outsold Sonic 2, and Tripple-ddd's reliance on primary sources is quite excessive. I welcome further comments on the matter. In the meantime, it is not only Tripple–ddd's mass deletions sans consensus that concern me, but also some of their own contributions, for example:

• Sega "has been the leader in the arcade industry from its foundation in 1960 to today." Nobody can deny Sega's significant contributions to the industry, but its own financial reports are not a good enough source to satisfy the Wikipedia standard of neutrality and verifiablity.
• "Sega Sammy aims to be in the Top 3 in the digital game market", sourced to the company's latest financial report, is recent trivia from a non-neutral source and in any case hardly a meaningful statistic.
• "Sega of Europe and Sega of America have been moderating more autonomously being able to purchase western developers once again" is unsourced gibberish.
• "The challenging economic climate of packaged video game software in western markets, deemed titles such as Binary Domain, Golden Axe: Beast Rider, Valkyria Chronicles, Yakuza localizations, Bayonetta not appropriate." "Not appropriate"? The cited source doesn't mention any of these games.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with several of these, and I understand your concerns,

On arcade and movile from investor reports

I strongly disagree that investor reports are biased. Shareholders want an objective view and performance of your company. Maybe it can be changed to be less excessive. Like instead "the leader", one of the leaders. And instead of Top 3 in the digital market, being merely "successfull". Is that fine?

On Sega of America and Sega of Europe:

It came across wrong. But it is true that Sega of America is designed to be a different identity from Sega of Japan. http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/132150/the_evolution_of_sega_a_.php

": It was by design, very much so. I think we've strongly tried to make Sega of America feel like it's not a Japanese company. We're trying to make sure we don't make the mistake of being another Japanese company trying to be another Japanese company in the west. We want to build our success through building products for the west in the west, so there are not many Japanese staff in our office at Sega of America. We have a lot of autonomy now, and it's absolutely by design."

Not a reason for Sega of Europe to not be the same way, statements of back then when Creative Assembly etc. were purchased, it indicated autonomy.

Sonic 2 being Sega's best selling game

Mario and Sonic and at the Olympic games technically surpassed it. If we don't count that, ok we can leave Sonic 2

On the "only 4 IPs now" thing:

It hasn't been stated, but the contrast of releases in the West and in Japan really makes the statement true. Also Bayonetta 2 being picked up by Nintendo. --Tripple-ddd (talk) 03:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The edits are reverted

It seems like there is no interrest except us two about the correct portrayal of Sega's current business and history.

--Tripple-ddd (talk) 12:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

My previous objections to your edits still stand. Indeed, you haven't modified any of the claims that you conceded were problematic. You've been causing a mess around a whole bunch of Sega articles, removing accurate information from Sonic Team with no edit summary, redirecting Sega AM3 to Sega Rosso when Sega Rosso should be AM5, ect., and with no consensus you really can't expect to get away with deleting half the article to skew the focus in favor of your original research "2005–present and the (ever-shrinking) Arcade market" section.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

You still didn't respond to my answers to your objections. Who get's the authority on the article then? The first who has written it? If that person doesn't have a problem (unless you are that person), with the changes, then there should be no problem.

I agree it is irresponsible to edit a page without an edit summary...however I still plan to change several articles to be more accurate (with proper sources). The Sonic Team page has no sourced backing up that UGA have anything to do with Sonic Riders or Project Rub.--Tripple-ddd (talk) 11:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:BURDEN, and WP:NOCONSENSUS. If you cannot prove your claims, which is the responsibility of the person who wants the change, then the changes are not accepted. This is why your edits keep getting undone. Sergecross73 msg me 11:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I meet all these criterias.

Except for this: ″In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.″

I explained my claims earlier, and have gotten no response. --Tripple-ddd (talk) 12:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Alright, can you break it down a little further? Give a few examples of changes you've made, and the sources that support them. Maybe I can give you more insight. Sergecross73 msg me 13:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

That you didn't know Takashi Yuda created Knuckles is perfectly understandable, but your widespread pattern of unexplained deletions is disruptive in the sense that you should tag such unsourced material first. Moreover, if you don't know what you are talking about, it might be wise to leave massive restructurings such as your deletion of half of this article to better qualified editors.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

? What does Takashi Yuda have to do with anything? Yes he was the director of both Project Rub and Sonic Riders, that doesn't mean these games have anything to do with United Game Artists. Yes I can tag it first, but that is no guarantee of it being fixed by someone.

And stop saying I deleted half the article. It's the "2005-present" section, and I left the Sega Studios section as a seperate page (since the article is tagged for being too long). You still haven't responded to my responses to your objections of the article restructuring.

@Sergevross73 It's basicilly about these 2 versions of the "2005-present" section: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sega&diff=prev&oldid=642881636

Both versions cite the Sega Sammy IR website and several gaming websites. However the current version is flawed in that it is inconsistent with the sections of Sega's history before. It details Sega's financial performance till about 2008, stops, mentions Sonic games, and then adds the copyypasted paragraph from Atlus page about Sega's Index buyout and structuring, and another copypasted paragraphic from the Sonic Boom: Rise of Lyric page. --Tripple-ddd (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

As the source says, Yuda also worked on UGA's Space Channel 5. In fact, UGA was filled with Sonic Team veterans such as Yuda, which is why they were merged back into Sonic Team when Sega restructured their internal studios in 2003.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but in the same interview, he says alot of people in the Sonic Riders development staff are new staff. http://info.sonicretro.org/Takashi_Yuda_interview_by_GameSpy_%28September_21,_2005%29

It is far fetched to attach it to United Game Artists (which officially just didn't exist). A mention is fine, but that is it I think. --Tripple-ddd (talk) 11:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Massive changes

My problems with the previous version:

• Advertising campaigns section being tagged for a long time now, it has to be removed
• Sega R&D sections and Sega Studios being unsourced for a long while now, also the Studios section is redundant
• Too detailed history post 2005
• Revenue are from Sega Sammy as a whole, which doesn't count from Sega, so it is deleted

I restructured the article the better give a sum of Sega Corporation as it is represented on Sega Sammy's website. And to to make in similar lenght to other companies like Capcom, Square Enix and Konami — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tripple-ddd (talk • contribs) 17:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

You completely evaded the four concrete criticisms I presented under "Proposed mass deletion". Until you do, expect to be reverted. (Also, stop arbitrarily splitting the paragraphs into numerous disconnected sentences.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Evaded? I responded, but you didn't respond back. Indefensible edits? According to who?

You still haven't provided any good arguments as to why it was good the leave the article the way it is.--Tripple-ddd (talk) 11:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for my rather sporadic edit schedule of late, not that it can be helped. While I still believe your text contains errors and excessively regurgitates Sega's PR statements, I suppose you haven't really made an already poor article worse, and I don't have the time to continue this edit war. TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Definitely need to iron things out here.

So I nipped in to do some copyediting on the tagged 2005-present subsection, and there's a couple big problems that I noticed, starting with the apparently-shared concern that this article reads a lot like a PR pamphlet, especially where the post-2005 area is concerned. The vast bulk of the citations provided also come from the same place, the Sega-Sammy annual reports, which not only is a WP:PRIMARY source that won't be super reliable for much else aside from raw fiscal data, but is also being used to cite assertions that it does not support-- in those instances, I put in Citation Needed tags, at least where I noticed them; there may be more. I'll do my best to find more sources that are more removed from the subject matter-- as much as work filters will allow for searching video game-related subjects, anyway-- as I'm sure the article will benefit from it.

The whole thing needs the living daylights NPOVed out of it, to be honest. I'll do my best to help, and I'll be active on the talkpage if anyone needs me. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 19:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey @Tripple-ddd: - I tried to touch base with you a few days ago on your user TP about this, but got no answer, so I'll try again and ping you on the article TP itself. I want to be able to discuss this and reach an understanding in the spirit of collaboration, so I'd appreciate a response.

In the 2005-present section, I pointed out places where the annual report citations don't support the assertions made in the paragraph by adding tags and explaining my reasoning in my editsum present in this diff. In this edit, you removed several of the CN tags and added a specific page of the annual report to reference the claims re: Virtua Fighter and After Burner-- but the page you supplied doesn't talk about those games at all, nor does it support the claims made in that paragraph that the technology for Afterburner and Virtua Fighter reinvigorated or were pioneers in the industry. Moreover, for bordering-on-promotional claims like that I would really recommend staying away from WP:PRIMARY sources like internal reports from Sega themselves and find outside, independent RSes that prove language like that holds water in an encyclopedic context.

I'd recommend leaving those CN tags there, or removing/rewording that portion of the text entirely, if no one is able to find something that can source those claims-- can we at least agree it would be better for the encyclopedia that way? BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 16:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Do what you like, haven't had time --Tripple-ddd (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I'll parse the source material a little more over the next few days and do what I can to improve the promotional verbiage. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 18:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Tripple-ddd is a problem editor who should be reverted on sight.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging:Whoa, whoa, take it easy-- I get that you've run into issues concerning this editor if previous threads here are any indication, and I can appreciate that they haven't been the easiest to get in touch with in my case, but I don't think it merits such a hostile assertion... I'm certainly not defending their actions when it comes to the editwarring and adding the POV prose, but I'm just wondering what you meant in this [[1]] edit summary here where you refer to their actions elsewhere. Are they causing problems on another article or something, or are you referring to the lack of response when I tried to communicate with them on their user TP as their actions "elsewhere"...? BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 22:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Dissident93 has been reverting many of Tripple-ddd's mass deletions, in which the latter has unilaterally redirected every article on every Sega development studio. Although serious editors might contend that many of the stubs are unlikely to ever contain significant encyclopedic value, there is no excuse for deleting Sonic Team and Sega AM2. More importantly, such bold changes need to be discussed at WikiProject Video Games first. When challenged, Tripple-ddd simply edit wars over and over until he wears others down while making no concessions, which is why he should be ostracized and sanctioned.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging:As it stand this version has just as many stubs and problems, and the current version is more up do date. I proposed on the Sega Project page, but I got no response. Simarly on this talk page, I waited for your response, but there wasn't one, until you backed down eventually. Also constant revertions on the main article cause confusion.

And you keep talking about Sonic Team or SEGA AM2 pages. This is about the Sega article, and you haven't provided a good argument as to why this current version is last "accepeptable" version. People still added, and did further improvment on the last version, seemingly making you the only person so far to have problem with it. Seems more like you have a problem with me, which is fine, but don't take it out on unrelated articles and back-pedal.--Tripple-ddd (talk) 07:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• You have no WP:CONSENSUS for your version, therefore it defaults back to the last good version. It's as simple as that. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Well it's hard to reach a consensus when only 3 people care, with 1 person editing, and other 2 always shutting it down and never giving compromises/giving suggestions. And the last good version has several tags, and no consensus either (I messed around a whole bunch and nobody minded). The last "good" version is outdated so I'll keep editing and post a link of the preview, till one of you are satisfied.

--Tripple-ddd (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• That does not give you the right to disrupt several years of status quo on your own whim, and make an even bigger mess. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg/707px-Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg.png When arguing please refer to the above and stay in the above 3 sections, thank you. --Tripple-ddd (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• Fantastic way of dodging the debate entirely; your changes were objectively worse. You made one mega article with a complete clusterfuck of tables, and then went against years of status quo to try and bludgeon your way above all others. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• Well you didn't have a debate to begin with! Like that picture, you just said "objectively crap", did just name-calling. Great on you referring to an unrelated article on this talk page btw.

Still waiting on "explaining using quotes pointing out mistakes" and "backing up with reasoning and supporting evidence regarding contradictions".

--Tripple-ddd (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Could everyone take a deep breath and stop being so combative? This is ridiculous and getting everyone, including the article, approximately nowhere. I would probably be more understanding of all parties involved if you weren't trying to sneer and ad hominem at one another instead of actually addressing the issues at hand. Which as far as I can see, are as follows, and I'm not going to point fingers at who's responsible for them.

• The article needs more nonprimary sources and less reliance on the internal reports from Sega to cite statements, or at least needs to make better use of the secondary and tertiary sources that are already in the reference list.
• The article needs more neutral language so to not sound like a promotional document.
• The article has too much content distributed in a confusing or inconsistent manner, with too much detail in certain places and an entire section blanked out in another, and is also suffering from CE issues.

So - are my assertions fair? Yes or no, and if no, why not? BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 19:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, since I started responding to this whole rigmarole today user:Dissident93 has gone ahead and made some changes to the 2005-present section among other things. I've got little issue with it, since it's made the article look at least visually shorter and more readable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlusterBlaster (talk • contribs) 19:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

All of the issues with promotional language from Sega Sammy's financial reports were introduced solely by Tripple-ddd, who has been reverted or opposed by everyone here--from myself and Indrian to Dissident93, and to you, BlusterBlaster. Hence the need to revert his vandalism until he gets tired.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I'd rather try to engage him/her/them in a productive manner than have this devolve into editwarring and more WP:BATTLEGROUND-ey nonsense as this has in the past, and try to make them understand what is appropriate for the article and what is not, so their evident interest in it can be focused in a positive direction. For starters, per WP:VANDALISM what they're doing is clearly not vandalism; they're obviously trying to add constructive information about Sega into the article using the reports, but they just don't have a good grasp on other important factors like NPOV and overreliance on primary sources-- the hackle-raising and incorrect accusations sure aren't teaching them, and the focus should be on getting them to learn instead of chasing them off the project entirely with pitchforks in hand.

When I talked to them in a polite manner, sure it took a few tries for them to get the message, but they obviously understood what I was trying to do was not meant to undermine them in any way and they didn't argue. I'd be willing to talk to them again, just as politely as before, address their concerns, and get them to understand what about their approach needs to change for the betterment of the article. Content concerns like the section omissions, etc can follow, as long as the discussion can remain civil-- obviously I can't stop you bunch from arguing and editwarring and carrying on, but it should be obvious how little would come of it. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 16:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• I would agree that most of their edits are not vandalism... however, they've moved pages in manners that are either incompetent or pure vandalism, such as moving pages from mainspace to user space - of non-existent users - before then punting the same page through several other locations. I also don't understand how they can complain about these articles, and then create the messes they did - look at the absolute farce of links that sits in their sandbox right now. If that gets moved to mainspace in anything approaching that state, it'll have to be redirected on sight. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Consensus building for reworked Sega site, thoughts please

So...here is the revision that get's reverted. I did some tweaking and put sources on the citation needed tags, the sources are mostly the same as they are from the pages of the games themselfs, so they should be acceptable. I removed the "shaped and reinvogerated the industry" part.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sega&diff=654842950&oldid=654831919

Then I did some changes, regarding the recent changing legal information on Sega, with it not being Sega Corporation anymore. I noticed on the JP wiki, they did seperate pages pages for Sega Games, Sega Interactive etc. I thought it would be for the best for it to simply being referred to "Sega". More information on the Sega Holdings entity could be be part of the Sega Sammy Holdings page.

Any opinions of the removed text about software R&D and hardware R&D and the advertising sections? --Tripple-ddd (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• Several issues that I can immediately spot. Firstly, you seem to make a pig's ear of the page formatting whenever you move them around - please don't put several different things on the same line, even if they render fine. Secondly, why did you take Sega versus Accolade out of a subheading? That shouldn't have been done. You removed notes about the various sub-studios with no explanations. You've made a mess of the 2005 paragraph, with things not being remotely in a chronological order, extremely poorly written, and various other issues. Getting rid of the R&D team section makes little sense when you provide no explanation for doing so. Finally, I have an issue with the fact you've barely added in any sources at all, and indeed have completely removed them (as far as I can tell) for some of the sections you've nuked. I do agree, however, with the removal of the "Advertisement campaigns" section, which very clearly falls under WP:NOT, in my opinion. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Lukeno94) Just gave your workover of the article a fairly careful read to see if anything stuck out-- I don't know much about the separate development divisions of Sega and their respective claims to fame/notability, so I'll leave that to the other involved editors to (hopefully nicely) point out what their place ought to be in the article. Mostly all I'm really taking issue with is just a few verbiage/copyediting issues; you did a really good job nuking the NPOV language, at a glance.

• In the lead, the phrase "[...]1981, by 2010" is worded a little confusingly. How about "As of 2010 (maybe a more recent figure would be appropriate if a source for it is available but the assertions still works regardless), Sega is the most prolific[...]"

• In the 1982-1989 section, there's no source for the laser disk/Astron Belt assertion-- that being said, there should maybe be a pipe to an existing article about one of these two things-- I don't know if a layman would know what a "laser disk" is in the context of an arcade machine or what its function would be; I certainly haven't ever heard of something like that (aside from the MCA/Philips Laserdisc, maybe...)

• In the section about the 32X, something's up with the wording in "[...]had problems with lack of software and hype about [the Saturn and PS1]". Maybe change it to "[...]competing with hype over/about the [Saturn and PS1]". Also, is "lack of software" supposed to mean that the game library on the 32X was too small to be successful, or was there some sort of problem with the software of the console or its games? That phrase might need clarification.

• The Sega vs. Accolade section doesn't have working cites, possibly due to a copypaste. It also only has one cite, so if there's anywhere else that covers that chapter in Sega's history we should try and sniff 'em out.

• In the Sega Saturn section, what is meant by the phrase "stronghold market"? This might need a rewording, brief explanation or a pipe to an article about the term if such a term is common in economics and has an entry on WP. Also, "Notable titles include several titles exclusive to[...]" is a little redundant; how about "Notable titles include several exclusives to [...]"?

• Dreamcast section - I vaguely remember hearing somewhere that Quake 3 Arena specifically on the Dreamcast was the first FPS that could be completely non-local multiplayer, but IDK if it's true, verifiable or if mentioning it would affect neutrality. Also, the wording around Shenmue is a little puffy- I suggest something like "[...]and Shenmue, a large-scope adventure game with freeform gameplay and a noted (noted by who, though, so cite and put quotation marks around any specific remarks they make) attempt at creating a detailed in-game city."

• Maybe change the title of the next section to "Shift to third-party software development (2001–2005)".

• 2005-current - "laid the foundation", is this an assertion made by the writer of the cite? (I can't check because work filters are garbage and don't let me see anything on GameSpot) If so, then it needs quotations put around it to take it out of WP's voice. "Successfull" -> successful. Consider rewording the sentence in the paragraph about the Sonic IP, "[...] having sold 150 million units of the franchise", to "having sold 1500 million units within its franchise."

So, that's my take on it right now. I remember that I rechecked the Sega-Sammy report you linked to initially about the Virtua Fighter and Virtua Racing stuff, and there was actually mention of VF/VS in there somewhere and I missed it-- so I was actually wrong about that, apologies! That being said, I see that you replaced the cite to that specific sentence to the GameSpot one, which would probably be better anyway since it's a nonprimary source, so it doesn't really matter anyway. Anyhow, I say it looks pretty good right now. One thing I couldn't check well were any citations that you used, because this cruddy work computer and it's outdated-ass Internet Explorer don't display them properly or let me see half the sources you're citing, so that may be something I'll have to evaluate later or leave for someone else to parse through. and as I mentioned before, I have little to no savvy regarding the different divisions of Sega and the things they did, nor can I really research it effectively, so that'll be for someone more informed than me.

I'll leave it to @TheTimesAreAChanging: and @Lukeno94:, or even @Dissident93:, if they're invested in this article too (they popped in only briefly at any rate), to provide further input on this point. Again, to all parties involved, if you've got a problem with something, be civil about it and we can work it out without there being a total shutdown of communications, okay? I don't mean to seem condescending towards editors who've been here much longer than me, but your rather inflammatory interactions here are the only experience I've had for how you tackle issues with another editor's work and I don't think it was a good way to go about it. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 14:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) Could you please be more specific by what you mean a "mess" and "various issues"? I'll basicilly agree with your formatting, chronology and writing (+grammar) points. These can be tagged, for futher improvement; if someone wants to write it more elegantly (someone did a revision once already).

For software R&D and hardware R&D, there was no source (however for executive personnel is easily to see who was president at what time).

I also should mention that the previous financial information was removed, because it was from the entire Sega Sammy group, and not Sega only. The business information of the entire operation income, and revenue etc. was never reflected on only Sega, but various entertainment and other firms, that are not reflected on the Sega article.

New revision, addressed the chronology issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sega&diff=prev&oldid=655056222

--Tripple-ddd (talk) 16:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) Can you please respond? To reiterate, I am asking to specify "mess" and "various issues". You still haven't responded to my suggestions (tagging for formatting, writing) or the revised version. --Tripple-ddd (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• Frankly, there are too many to list here. You remove sourced content without any explanation - like the note about Sega producing more arcade boards than anyone else. The formatting for images and main templates is still poor, as you've shoehorned several things onto the same line when they really shouldn't be there. You're still putting in subsections as subheadings - not how things work. Your 2005 section is still outdated, as it contains basically nothing beyond 2012. You removed the R&D section again rather than sourcing it, as I requested you do before. In short, I don't think you paid attention to ANYTHING I said. The Seal of Quality section probably should be kept as well, just rewritten and sourced (unless sourcing is impossible), since it has some very important information in the difference between Nintendo and Sega's licensing practises. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't remember removing any sources. The source of Sega making more arcade things is still there. I can add back the Hardware R&D section (since it has clear key person that is sourcable, software R&D doesn't), and the Sega seal of quality if you want. But beyond that I'm sorry to say, I really don't get your arguments. I personally see the layout as adequate that could be fixed easily by someone who is more experienced with it. How is the 2005- section outdated? Anything you suggest to add?

@TheTimesAreAChanging:, @Dissident93: are also asked to provide further input. --Tripple-ddd (talk) 22:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I haven't been paying much attention to this as of late, since other editors got involved. My main issue with the edits was that the formatting was terrible, even if the information was accurate. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Currently, the formatting isn't much better either.--Tripple-ddd (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• That's not an excuse for being lazy. You clearly DID remove the Guinness World Record information and its source. How is the 2005 section outdated? By the simple fact it barely has anything beyond 2012. That should be obvious. I'm seeing very little effort from you to actually respond to people's concerns, just a fair bit of bluster. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
• Then focus on improving the current pages instead of forcing multiple articles into one? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @Dissident93: This is about the Sega article, not something else

@Lukeno94: Just so we are clear, are you talking about this version of the article? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sega&diff=prev&oldid=655384894, because there the source in the lead about the Guiness World Book records is still there (I actually added that assertion, so I had no reason to remove it).

Things in the article that talk about things post 2012.

" In 2012, Sega established Sega Networks Co., Ltd. for its mobile phone business; although separate at first, it merged with Sega in 2015, and established Sega Games Co., Ltd. These new divisions will replace the former Sega Corporation, and the new Sega Holdings Co., Ltd will contain all entertainment companies from the Sega Sammy group."

"Sega's arcade business contributed more to Sega Sammy profits than Sega's consumer profits by a year to year basis until the year 2014.[53] Due to the declining arcade business in Japan[54], development personell will be relocated to the consumer business, specifically the digital game area.[55]"

"In 2013, in co-operation with BBC Earth, Sega opened the first interactive nature simulation museum, Orbi Yokohama."

--Tripple-ddd (talk) 08:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• Ah, yes, I was wrong about the GWR, my apologies. However, the above information doesn't change that the article still is out of date as it has barely anything beyond 2012. That's what I've said all along - not that there IS nothing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• @Lukeno94: What is there to add? Like the other companies on here, I think a brief description about their activities (about as brief as their short overview in their financial reports) is enough.--Tripple-ddd (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• Quite a lot, if you actually look around. [2] is worthy of note, as just one example. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• • @Lukeno94: Reduction of western businesses is already in the image description https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sega&diff=prev&oldid=655384894#/media/File:Sega_Consumer_business.png. Decline of arcade business is also reflected. Tripple-ddd (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• That doesn't count in the slightest. Firstly, that's a meaningless image with no context. Certainly not a valid prose replacement. Secondly, it's a blatant copyvio image that you have no right to license under the Creative Commons license, or as your own work. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• @Lukeno94: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sega_Annual_Icome(Loss)_1993-2004.svg What about this image then? --Tripple-ddd (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• That doesn't appear to have been cropped straight out of an official Sega document, and your image clearly was. WP:OSE also applies. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• @Lukeno94: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sega&diff=prev&oldid=655602975, did another revised version. I removed the 2 images that are cropped from official material. Then I added bits the layoffs and focusing on digital bit. I added the key person (Hideki Sato) behind Hardware R&D who was also president one time (was missing). I added back the Seal of Quality piece, but could not find a source. What do you think now?--Tripple-ddd (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Still haven't addressed several issues that I pointed out from before. As for the Seal of Quality, you aren't looking very hard for sources, and there are a few retro Sega review sites that may also be reasonably useful. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sega&diff=prev&oldid=655685441 My last effort for making this article up to your standards...for layouts, formatting and sources (I really cant be bothered to look though an entire book/magazine for Sega seals of quality sources, so I just sourced the link you provided, which most likely isn't enough) issues, there are tags now. Can we please have this article reverted now? The current article can stay outdated for only so long, and it's an only worse version.--Tripple-ddd (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• "I can't be bothered" does sum up your approach to some of this, it seems, unfortunately. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• @Lukeno94: Can I revert it tough? I am trying, but I just don't have a clue but what you mean by formatting being poor. Someone who has a clue, and can see the faults in the layout, can fix it. What is wrong about reverting it? I am not making the article worse at least. I ask @TheTimesAreAChanging: for his opinion also --Tripple-ddd (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Given that a couple of people have serious issues with your formatting, no. It's too high profile a page for that kind of mucking around. You'd be far better off putting together a version in your userspace and editing it in response to any changes, rather than your current tactic. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sega&diff=prev&oldid=655817199 The last fix, I could figure out, with not doing with Visual Editor. Now it is identical with the current version, except for the changed text, which is by all acounts is more up-to-date and agreed to be better. Again asking @Dissident93: @TheTimesAreAChanging: but also the admin @Sergecross73: for further input.

• The formatting is still poor, and you've still ignored multiple points myself and others have made. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• What do you mean by formatting, is it some of the bolding? The text? Or should the chronology be made more consistent? Other than BlueBusters point about some of the text writing, I really just don't have a clue, by what you mean by other points.--Tripple-ddd (talk) 12:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Too many words are bolded, alot of unstructured paragraphs, grammatical errors, some of the info had nothing to do with Sega at all, etc. Just see this edit to see how the entire article can be improved. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Could you please pinpoint about what was not Sega? Didn't you say before that the info was accurate? Too many words bolded? All I bolded was the new companies of the Sega Sammy restructure. And all you did was update the current article to present tense...it still has all the other faults. What is unstructured? The 2005- section clearly reads: western buyouts and closures, sega japan ip, digital transition, the end. I know the grammar isn't perfect, but I appreciate some suggestions about the 2005-current section. English isn't my first language.--Tripple-ddd (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• The info is accurate, but the stuff about Atlus being apart of Index had nothing to do with Sega, so only include the relevant info, such as them being bought out and how Sega restructured them. And yes, too many words are bolded when they shouldn't be, they would read better as Sega than Sega. Also, tense should matter in grammatical context, don't know why you'd mention that as if it wasn't important. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Everything is past tense in the revision that I did. And the split of Index, to Index and Atlus, has something to do with Sega, as both Index and Atlus are under Sega. Also the new divisions replaces the former Sega Corporation name which was bolded before, when Sega Corp replaced Sega Enterprises. Should the names in the lead, Service games in the history of founding etc. also not be bolded? --Tripple-ddd (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Not before they went bankrupt, which had nothing to do with Sega until they were bought out. And I'm fine with a few bolded words, but multiple ones per sentence in the intro is not needed. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I see there is no response. So I'll change it. --Tripple-ddd (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Reverted, since you still haven't bothered to address people's concerns properly. I recommend you find something else to do, since you aren't listening here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Lukeno94:

Concerns that people have brought up:

"Firstly, you seem to make a pig's ear of the page formatting whenever you move them around - please don't put several different things on the same line, even if they render fine."

The formatting has been the exact same as it is now, except for different text.

"Secondly, why did you take Sega versus Accolade out of a subheading? That shouldn't have been done. You removed notes about the various sub-studios with no explanations. You've made a mess of the 2005 paragraph, with things not being remotely in a chronological order, extremely poorly written, and various other issues. Getting rid of the R&D team section makes little sense when you provide no explanation for doing so."

I fixed the subheading. I don't know about the sub-studios, I thought it would have been better leaving into the seperate Sega development studio page. Then I fixed the chronology issues, you haven't repsonded if you liked them or not. Generally, I can only guess what you mean other removed sources. Do you mean sections in "Shift to 3rd software development". I removed the entire section about Australian distrubitors, it wasn't sourced, but more importantly, I felt it was inconsistent with the chronology and importance of the article. Please pinpoint the sources that I removed.

"You remove sourced content without any explanation - like the note about Sega producing more arcade boards than anyone else. The formatting for images and main templates is still poor, as you've shoehorned several things onto the same line when they really shouldn't be there. You're still putting in subsections as subheadings - not how things work. Your 2005 section is still outdated, as it contains basically nothing beyond 2012. You removed the R&D section again rather than sourcing it, as I requested you do before. In short, I don't think you paid attention to ANYTHING I said. The Seal of Quality section probably should be kept as well, just rewritten and sourced (unless sourcing is impossible), since it has some very important information in the difference between Nintendo and Sega's licensing practises."

Again, the formatting has been the exact same as it is now, except for different text. I proved that I did not remove the source in the lead section. The amount of events post 2012 content, is consistent with the prior article and other history articles of gaming companies on Wikipedia. I solved the R&D section through noting Hideki Sato as a president - which wasn't there before. I haven't had a response if you agree with this or not.

This is all I could interpret by your responses. Please be more specific with your issues.

Then there the suggestions by @BlusterBlaster: which refer to things that are still present on the current article, and I haven't written. I have adressed his suggestion about the lead.

@Dissident93: last response was this "The info is accurate, but the stuff about Atlus being apart of Index had nothing to do with Sega, so only include the relevant info, such as them being bought out and how Sega restructured them. And yes, too many words are bolded when they shouldn't be, they would read better as Sega than Sega. Also, tense should matter in grammatical context, don't know why you'd mention that as if it wasn't important."

And I responded and he hasn't responded.

Like @Lukeno94: he was too unspecific when he said: "Too many words are bolded, alot of unstructured paragraphs, grammatical errors, some of the info had nothing to do with Sega at all, etc. Just see this edit to see how the entire article can be improved."

Again, this is all I could interpret thus far. Be more specific, and don't stay silent. Thanks. --Tripple-ddd (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• You're the one proposing/demanding changes, so the burden is on you to actually put some effort in. Also, giving people only a couple of days to respond is extremely unhelpful, and your massive post above still shows that you aren't actually answering peoples concerns in full. You still haven't bothered to look for any material later than 2012; all you've done is tweaked what was already in the article. Your formatting is still woeful, and if you can't see that, you should probably find something else to do on another site. I've directly pointed out some of the issues, and you've never addressed them. If we were to point out every single issue with your changes, we'd be here for a bloody eternity. You also haven't done much with adding sources, and instead continue to remove things out of apparent laziness, even after being called out on it. Dissident also responded an hour before that wall of text right there. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
• I did respond, also Lukeno94 didn't say that, I did. I also don't see how I was unspecific, either, as the formatting (either done by you or other users) wasn't that great. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Well you responded again with things that weren't in the article. Again this revision has nothing about Index going bankrupt. About the bolded text, it has been a status quo for year on articles, to have divisions of companies be bolded. In the lead Sega America and Sega Europe have been bolded for years.--Tripple-ddd (talk) 08:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the lack of response from me, I've been out on vacation for the last week so I haven't had time to do much wikistuff. Since I've been out it seems like the situation's become a dog's breakfast of diffs, so I'm gonna need to take some time to parse through it all before I give further input. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 12:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

So in the diffs, I'm seeing a lot of back-and-forth about the arcade/amusement business side of Sega. Information about it keeps getting added and removed in different places. Are the parties opting to take it out concerned about giving it undue weight, its notability, or if it bloats the article too much? Or does it sound too promotional? I've got the same questions about the apparent dispute regarding the software development divisions. Tripple already mentioned that he opted to take it out because there's already coverage in other articles (?), and from what I can see the info that was added back in is unsourced. Again, I'd like some clarification on what is so important/notable about the separate development divisions of Sega that they need significant exposition in the article. Is there something they've developed that is significant to Sega as a whole? Dissident removed it already as unsourced, so I'm not sure if consensus is now to keep them out of the article.

I'm also curious to know what specific references are being removed, but it's hard to tell in this slurry of back-and-forth diffs, and saying "there's so many problems that there's no point explaining" isn't helping matters. I'd like some clarification on that as well, if possible. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 15:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, @Tripple-ddd:... if the formatting's obviously a gripe, there's something that needs to be done about that, at least so it's no longer a complaint about your work-- and if it just involves putting content on separate line breaks (as I think that's been the crux of the issue based on the above discussion but I could be wrong), then what's the big deal? At this point it doesn't matter whose crappy formatting it is, whether yours or some other editor before you; just fix it as you're making your revisions. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 14:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@BlusterBlaster: I have little clue on what seperate line breaks could mean...--Tripple-ddd (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Hitting Enter once, after you're done placing a wikicode object like an image, table or text. Just hit Enter once after placing each thing. Twice for paragraphing text. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 15:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sega&diff=prev&oldid=656503637 Well in this version, none of the image files are in the middle of the text...--Tripple-ddd (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@Dissident93: You seem to be around, editing things, however why don't you respond here to my proposals first? The most important is my proposed text as it up to date (its been half a month since the Sega Corp name existed)--Tripple-ddd (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, this huge wall of text is getting difficult to keep up with. Nothing is stopping you from adding it into the article itself, as if it's accurate, sourced, and relevant, it will stay. Bad formatting can easily be corrected by another user. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I concur; it's gotten really hard to tell what is going on aside from more arguing over minutiae that can be improved once the content is actually added to the article instead of reverting it all the instant something's changed. I would have said WP:SOFIXIT about the formatting issues if changes weren't being reverted entirely right away. I suppose in that respect my next suggestion is directed towards Luke or whoever else has their reverts on a hair trigger right now - Try letting the changes Tripple makes sit for a minute, and calmly look it over with all bees in bonnets set aside; if anything's wrong with it, make edits to improve on it, don't just revert the whole thing entirely and bring the whole discussion full circle again. I'm not really seeing much point to bringing the editing process to a grinding halt until proposals and complaints on both sides are 100% answered, because it's not going anywhere now. Personally, if I see anything in Tripple's edits that doesn't read right and doesn't get reverted wholesale the minute someone else lays eyes on it, I'll just fix it and explain myself, I'm not going to revert whe whole thing. Just replace the R in BRD with specific edits to improve on what was boldly added-- How much more complicated does it need to be? BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 02:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Much-needed section break

I still don't know what the factual arguments are behind the dispute between weight given to the Sega amusement business content, Sega vs. Accolade, and Seal of Quality content. The latter two didn't have much cited at all, and the former, while not very well sourced, is still salvageable and talks about a relatively important part of Sega's business, whereas the latter two were just two very specific aspects of the Genesis era-- important in their own right, but only really to the history around that specific console, not to Sega as a whole, is my take on it. I didn't write them out of the article entirely, though-- they're in the "see also" section.

One thing that I'm trying to figure out on the side-- why the heck are some of the table of contents entries for the amusement business sections showing in bold? Anybody know? BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 17:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Because Tripple-ddd didn't read a thing he was told to stop doing in the wall of text above. In fact, he just overwote the page with his own version, without checking to see if any new info was replaced in the process (which is was). I've manually put back in the info that got replaced, but if he is going to keep doing this, we may need admin assistance. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Well it's good that you are satisfied with the text that I wrote (I hope there is agreement now, and it wont be reverted anymore). But some things:

• I wasn't satisfied with you clearly copy-pasting your own version of the article, erasing info that was added in the last few days.

• Woudn't it be better to seperate the amusement business? It has nothing to with the console focused paragraphs.

• I'm fine with that, as long as it's better than the current way.

• The last sentence about sega downsizing, seems already covered in the sentence before "Sega has had a number of layoffs and reduction of their western business in 2012[50] and 2015[51] in order to focus on the digital game market"

• Something I overlooked, thanks.

• Sega is not called Sega Corporation anymore: http://www.segasammy.co.jp/english/pdf/release/20150212_organizational%20restructuring_e_final.pdf My suggestion is simply leaving it as "Sega", as they are known anyways.

• Thanks, I'll change it back. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

--Tripple-ddd (talk) 23:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Got rid of the amusement business subheadings in several places as there was no reason to distinguish them aside from the section discussing consoles. Unnecessarily breaks up the prose and makes the table of contents navigation look clunky, where a separate paragraph suffices. Additionally, "company personnel" seems too general of a section for the major heads of the company (sounds more like we'd be aiming for a full employee list, lol)-- would "company executives" work better? BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 16:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Is it significant?

@Dissident93: persist to add this

In May 2015, Sega announced it would be removing various mobile games from the App Store, Google Play Store, Samsung App Store, and Amazon Appstore, citing quality concerns.[65]

I say no because:

• This is insignificant news because Sega and other companies remove games all the time, and it is not reported on other companies main page

However Dissident argues that the things I added are less significant, to which I ask, what exactly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tripple-ddd (talk • contribs) 9:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• So, in other words, you were reverting out of spite? It's significant enough for IGN, Eurogamer, Polygon and a whole bunch of other news places to post articles about it. Please don't just act out of spite because you can't get your own way, and actually bother to look things up first. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• I'm well aware of it, there are so many things that sites report, should every single thing be in a company article? If we would the articles would be completly oversized...something that you complained about earlier --Tripple-ddd (talk) 10:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• If other companies did the same thing, a single, noteworthy and sourced sentence added to the article won't hurt at all. And like I said before, it's actually less trivial than some of the info you added previously. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Dissident93: Really, what in the article that I added is trivial? --Tripple-ddd (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• I've forgotten, as a lot of it has been edited or removed since. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• Well, what's up currently seems to be fine then anyway, which is what I agreed upon anway...--Tripple-ddd (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• Except the fact you reverted it three times before stopping, so what's your point here? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• There are many things that companies report, yes, but this is obviously noteworthy enough for most of them to be reporting it. The only reason you reverted was because you hadn't got your way earlier. And, no, major companies removing mobile games for quality reasons is not a regular occurrence. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Who said quality reasons? The Blog states "didn't meet our standards" which could mean financial performance etc. It is a common occurence: Here from Sega:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/olliebarder/2014/12/14/after-burner-climax-to-be-removed-from-sale-on-christmas-eve/

http://www.videogamer.com/pc/virtua_tennis_4/news/virtua_tennis_4_to_be_removed_from_digital_channels_on_april_23.html

http://demon-tribe.com/en/close.html

Then EA and Ubisoft:

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2015-04-16-ea-just-closed-two-thirds-of-its-core-free-to-play-games

http://www.trueachievements.com/n17759/ubisoft-closing-online-servers-for-several-games.htm

Which actually is not covered in the respective wiki articles at all --Tripple-ddd (talk) 10:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• In this case we don't actually know which games Sega is removing so a short note on this article seems fine for now. The examples you've listed mention specific titles, in those cases the information should be present on the game article. If an announcement is made on which games Sega is removing then the information can be moved to the respective game articles. --The1337gamer (talk) 11:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• Well I guess so, it still seems inconsistent to just have it there, atfer all the more vastly more significant news. Unrelated, but what of proposed split of the article into "Products and services"?--Tripple-ddd (talk) 11:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• I'm think we should rename Other media to Products and services and start expanding and consolidating some information from the History section there. --The1337gamer (talk) 11:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• Should it be in chronoligical order or be split into consoles, games, amusement/arcades etc.? --Tripple-ddd (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• Split into topic areas: Video games consoles, video games (can cover arcade games as well), toys/amusements/merchandise, etc. --The1337gamer (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• Is this satisfactory for the History section (basicilly removed of what would be considered products and services)? User:Tripple-ddd/sandbox4

quick question for User:Tripple-ddd

I just parsed the paragraph you just edited a bit ago for the 2001-2005 section. What statement here:

Sega introduced several novel concepts tailored to the Japanese market. Derby Owners Club was the first large-scale satellite arcade machine with IC card for data storage. Trading card game machines were introduced for general audiences with World Club Champion Football and for young children with Mushiking: King of the Beetles.

is being cited to the East Valley Tribune article? It doesn't look to me like the citation's supporting what's being said here, so I'm probably going to take it out. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 14:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• It might be worth looking at what it said before, to see if that matches the citation or not. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Before they edited that paragraph just now, or further back? I guess I can try and look back to see if that specific paragraph said something different a couple dozen diffs ago, but this article's structure has been jumping around quite a bit the last couple months so it might take some time. I'll see what I find. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 15:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
    • @Lukeno94:As a less experienced editor, I'd like to know if there's a tool that allows you to find out when a specific piece of content was added to an article, if such a thing exists... all I'm certain of is that the cite was "retrieved" in March 2012, and I suppose that means I'll have to read through the diffs for that period, but is there a more efficient way to do it, out of curiosity? BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 15:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think there's necessarily a quick way, but one way of doing so is going to the diff prior to each big block of Tripple-ddd edits. If we take the "accessdate" as being gospel, when on the page history, you can edit the date on the browse history to see the page looked like back then For what it's worth though, I agree that the citation definitely doesn't support that passage of text. Looking at that month, I can see 0 evidence of the citation being added at that point (or any point in March), so who knows what is going on. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I see. One thing I tried earlier is to just look at all of the March 2012 diffs one by one like you probably did, but none of them added that citation anywhere, so whatever that source is/was supposed to be for now is lost on me. Whatever. The article just mentions ALL.net in a single sentence about arcade networks in general, so removing it won't hurt anything. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 16:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• That particular cite was for the decline of the global arcade industry stuff. I think it was @The1337gamer: who moved it around, and also wants to do the split of "products and services", and removing games etc. from the history article? Asking, is anyone really willing to do it? He suggested it, but hasn't done anything, aside from a bit initiating (removing pictures, renaming headers etc.). If he doesn't answer I would suggest leaving it as is, changing some stuff back.--Tripple-ddd (talk) 07:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• I haven't made any changes related to this. Here is the revision before I made edits: link. Eastvalleytribune is still being still cited in the exact same place. All I did was fill in references with correct formatting and templates. I haven't moved any citations from their original locations. --The1337gamer (talk) 08:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• I see, but what of the article split, are you expecting someone else to do it, after you did a bit of stuff?--Tripple-ddd (talk) 09:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• This is Wikipedia, anybody can contribute to page. Me laying out a skeleton doesn't mean I'm the only one allowed to fill it or that the burden is on me to complete it. If you want to start expanding the section then go ahead. I'd suggest not removing information from the History section yet though as we don't want to lose any information. Nobody has objected writing a Product and services section, and other GA-class company articles of this size and scope have a similar structure to this (see Google). --The1337gamer (talk) 09:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Well I won't change the article...I think the structure of segmenting the consoles and amusement business of before worked just fine: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sega&diff=659797857&oldid=659797710...more headers is the only I would change. If for a couple of months no one majorly takes on the restructing I think it would be for the better just to remove the tag (and change the header back to other media)--Tripple-ddd (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Well it seems like someone disliked adding more headings...honestly I really just dont mind as it is either way...--Tripple-ddd (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• The headers are currently fine. You've had other ones before (amusement sections) and they got removed, so why are you surprised? The main issue currently with the article is lack of relevant info inside each header. For example, there is a single sentence about the Sega Pico (in the Products section), and none about the Advanced Pico Beena. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• I think Beena coverage is enough within the Pico article. I don't really mind if you add more, but I personally view things such as the Nomad (Game Gear is more important) and Advanced Pico Beena as minor products. I think the article is big enough--Tripple-ddd (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Obscure arcade stuff is more noteworthy? Doesn't matter if they are minor, they should at least be mentioned. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Well, that arcade stuff is commercially successfull for Sega (which is why it makes it in a financial report) despite unknown in the west. Nomad is known, but neither has acclaim (which is why things like Shenmue are in the article) or was financially successfull. A short mention is ok I guess--Tripple-ddd (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dissident93: You seem to think that alot of the stuff about resorts, theme parks and arcades is irrelevant in comparision to the small products relased in North America (Nomad, I'd also include the Flash website PlaySega, or their old cell-phone division). Wikipedia is supposed to give a worldwide view, and company pages on Wikipedia don't have every single product but more of the major things. Regardless of the fact that it is unknown in the west, it still makes it in financial reports due to either being a very big investment or making alot of money.

Either way, the Nomad and Sega Channel should be sized down, there are more in-depth than some of the home console segments.

Also I have yet to find a good reason why the really timely mention of removing mobile games is worthy of staying in the article. I mean is the article supposed to be include every thing that Sega announces from now on forward?--Tripple-ddd (talk) 21:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• "Wikipedia is supposed to give a worldwide view" Exactly, which is why NA specific products also merit a mention. Did you not notice the Canadian and UK info for the Sega Channel? As for the Nomad info being reduced, I'm fine with that, but you shouldn't just keep it one sentence either. For the removal of various mobile games, it's noteworthy, why do you disagree? It was reported on various websites, and it's fits in with the theme of Sega reshuffling. No, the article shouldn't report every single piece of news, but this wasn't just one or two games being removed here. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Reverted Tripple's removal of the info, since I don't really get why they took it out based on this discussion or their editsum. Also, do we have a press release or some sort of source on which games were taken down, out of curiosity? BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 21:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• GameSpot reported that 19 games so far have been removed, along with Sonic 4. I don't think Sega has officially announced the exact games themselves though. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• I agree, that edit summary was bogus and made no sense. Even when Sega do announce which games they will be taking down, that's not a justification for just removing the passage altogether! Very poor form, but hardly surprising for this user. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
• They probably removed it because I said this information could be covered and moved into respective video articles if we knew the which titles Sega was taking down in the #Is it significant? section. They shouldn't be taking my opinion as a consensus though. If the majority think this falls under the scope of this article then it should stay. --The1337gamer (talk) 23:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• If there are a few noteworthy removals, then I think it should be included. If Sonic 4 has been removed, as one of the sources provided by Dissident suggests, then that's a fairly major removal. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• Like I showed earlier earlier, games from different companies are removed all the time, and don't get into the main company articles. It's inconsistent with other articles on Wikipedia --Tripple-ddd (talk) 10:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Such as...? You haven't given any examples of articles you're basing this decision on, and it's making it harder for us to understand your rationale. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 12:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
• So just because other users haven't added that info on other articles yet, means you should remove it here? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 11:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• I doubt Wikipedia has info on info every single game that is removed from the app store, where things appear and dissapear daily. I really don't get this debacle at all. Also I have yet to see a good argument how the off-hand inclusion is actually consistent with the paragraph of the article. --Tripple-ddd (talk) 11:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Well, the removals of notable mobile titles is an example of how Sega is reducing/rearranging its service focus across the board in recent years, which is what that paragraph is getting into if the subheader is to be believed, isn't it? How is it not consistent? BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 12:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Laying off people, closures of offices, and outlining smaller number of packaged games/arcades over the last decade is actually pretty major (which can be detailed alot further as well). In comparision removing apps really isn't. --Tripple-ddd (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Well, it's already been established that one of the mobile games being removed was related to their most precious IP (Sonic), so honestly I'm not seeing how that's any different than the reduced output of packaged games, unless you're mitigating the importance of mobile vs. packaged games based on personal opinion. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 13:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah well, it's still just a game that has been removed. It has happened before. The sentence of packaged games is significant because it outlines the output within 10 years.--Tripple-ddd (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Isn't it an important example of how the trend of service reduction is continuing, though? I suppose there runs the risk of it smacking of confirmation bias or even WP:OR (I'll let someone else point it out if my reasoning is tilting in that direction), but if I base this strictly on the structure of the prose, the "reshuffling" paragraph is literally all about Sega shifting focus to the mobile/digital game sectors, going chronologically from speaking of their market reduction of packaged games and other commodities to focus specifically on mobile/digital games in the early 2010s, to the success they had with the Phantasy Star MMO and other games, to now, where they're taking flagship mobile games off the market. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 14:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Tripple-ddd: Your only argument is that "it has been done before". which somehow prevents it from being noteworthy. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Dissident93: Yeah it does, there is lots of common occurence in companies, such as a bad fiscal quarter here and there, or key people leaving which are not included in articles...like imagine on an article on McDonalds financial performance throughout the decade in one paragrapch, then there is suddenly a sentence at the end about 4 burgers being removed from the menu. It is simply inconsistent, which is my argument, not that it was done before.--Tripple-ddd (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

New section

@BlusterBlaster: The argument was that the removal of games was related to the digital focus, and restructuring. Which is the response to my argument of inconsistency. I see it only as a slight relation. It was a blog mention, it has been done before (removing games is covered in the pages of the games rather than the major game company articles, and Sega has done it before). I mean let's take it as a source by source flow of the article. For alot of it, it is a summarization of all that happened within a string of years...using financial reports that summarize it. How does remove removing games by the american branch fit into this? Also unrelated, but the Nomad and Sega Channel paragraphs are too long, they are as long as the Genesis and Dreamcast paragraphs which doesn't work.

The Sega Blog is a WP:PRIMARY source, but IGN UK is definitely a reliable source for video game-related articles. How is the mobile game takedown not worthy of mention if it's enough to have a European division of IGN reporting it and not the US division? The paragraph it was in was about Sega of America anyway, so why does it matter if it was there? BlusterBlaster ^beep_boop 16:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

AFAIK, the games were removed from all markets worldwide, not just the American appstores. How is this not noteworthy? This was not just one or two games being removed, but 10+ for "quality concerns" and it ties into the company changes the rest of the paragraph is about. So until another user disagrees with the consensus to keep it in the article, it will stay. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dissident93: It was the EU/US stores which are distinctly different from the Asian and Japan stores. Either way, for one they never said quality standards, just standards. And "change" is how it ties in to the paragraph? This paragraph is about company wide restructuring and name changes. Then there is a sentence, that is about removing mobile games which is a very common practice as I said, especially when companies cancel dozens of them for underperforming in the JP store, none of this covered in company articles. Explain to me this flows well together? What would you consider similarly insignificant in the article to justify it?--Tripple-ddd (talk) 21:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The IGN piece literally is titled with it being a quality concern, and talks about how it was a quality concern, but whatever, this is just arguing semantics at this point. The 2013-present section has "digital market focus" right in its subtitle, so there's every reason to discuss changes to their digital market offerings if that's one of their biggest sources of revenue these days-- to use your metaphor, what if Mickey D's dropped almost all of their menu items, and focused on selling almost only burgers from the 2000s onwards? It would matter a hell of a lot more in their business timeline if they did indeed drop a burger from their menu due to quality reasons in that case. As far as non-Ameri-Euro-whathaveyou-centric coverage goes, if there's any reliable Asian video-game-related publication that you're aware of that has written a piece on JP store games from Sega being pulled, they'd fit right in too, it's just a matter of them not having been found yet; it's no reason to exclude perfectly usable information. BlusterBlaster ^beep_boop 13:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@BlusterBlaster: IGN added the "quality concerns", if you read the blog, things are stated differently. And Sega isn't doing something as drastic as you said...these mobile games aren't even key titles in their reports, they are a footnote at most to the company. The mobile market fluncuates so much, you probably know much content is removed and added daily...that is barely covered on articles. No one is going to write about removal of games on Wikipedia on the Asian markets, I guarantee it, because most would agree that it is simply not worth a mention. I ask again, what compares in significance in the article that would justify the inclusion of this mobile info? --Tripple-ddd (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

How about:

• Sega launched a subscription based flash website called "PlaySEGA" which played emulated versions of Sega Genesis as well original web-based flash games.[37] It was subsequently shut down due to low subscription numbers.[38]
• In 1997, Sega entered into a short-lived merger with Bandai. However, it was later called off, citing "cultural differences" between the two companies.[18]
• In 2004, the GameWorks chain of arcades became owned by Sega, until the chain was sold off in 2011.

No one else is convinced that it's insignificant to make mention of the mobile game removals at this point. Trying to argue that the company doesn't consider it significant enough says nothing of an external, nonprimary RS who believes it significant enough to write about, and we favor secondary sources over a view coming straight from the horse's mouth-- if we always followed a given company's example of what they consider "unimportant" information, do you have any idea how whitewashed and promotional company articles would end up looking? Also, you're not supposed to continue reverting the information out again while it's under discussion; you're toeing edit-warring at this point, so cut it out. BlusterBlaster ^beep_boop 17:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

"No one is going to write about removal of games on Wikipedia on the Asian markets, I guarantee it" Maybe not just one or two games, but when multiple ones are removed at the same time citing a single, major reason such as "quality concerns" I absolutely would. And like BlusterBlaster said above, how is the "PlaySEGA" sentence okay to remain, when it's basically the same thing, on a lower scale? Just because some Sega Sammy report does not mention the mass removal of games, does not mean it's un-noteworthy. You are relying way too much on those reports, which are only good for certain things such as personnel, departments, and financial info, all three of which you have been told to slow down primarily focusing on. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Again read the Sega blog, "quality" is never mentioned, it merely states "standards". Which means not bringing in enough money, as I said happens all the time on mobile stores. Alot of info in the article that isn't primary sourced from Sega Sammy too, mixed reception of Sonic games woudn't be there, or Sega closing offices and studios. Owning a chain and merging with a company is significant. Getting up a flash website (PlaySega) running maybe isnt significant. But whatever, these three could be removed and I would not mind. But nobody has convinced me that it is significant...I mean all I see "it fits in the paragraph", alot could fit in there. I mean it really is just a timely footnote. Mass removal of catalouge is common, and can you tell me where this is covered in a company article? --Tripple-ddd (talk) 00:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dissident93: I still haven't seen a response to my arguments from you, you are effectively ignoring it again.

Don't see how I'm ignoring you if I've responded multiple times on the same thing. And it's not our responsibility to convince you. You are the only one arguing to remove it, and does it really matter on what literal term Sega used on why they removed the games from the appstores? "Standards" in this context means because they did not think the games should be available anymore, and how is that not the same exact thing if they used the term "quality concerns"? You really should just take a break from editing these articles for a while, honestly. Just look at the massive walls of text on several different sections above, in which nearly every user who has responded is against the majority of your arguments and edits. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dissident93: Not really, you haven't responded, you just said this: " Your only argument is that "it has been done before; which somehow prevents it from being noteworthy" which is not at all the only thing of what I was talking about, then you said this: "So until another user disagrees with the consensus to keep it in the article, it will stay." You are clearly ignoring the conversation. If you are that apathetic about it, why do you even care on what is in the article? Oh an of course "Quality standards" and "Standards" are two different things, as they latter could imply other things as well. Also is listing the stores necessary?

If you're going to insist on seeing other examples in other company articles talking about mobile/minor games and related activity, here you go:

• Square Enix arty talks about an online game shutdown in the respective online gaming section
• Section on Insomniac Games about their social gaming development activity to date
• EA Games talks about minor studio/mobile game nitty-gritties

A critical difference at play here between Sega and other companies these days is that Sega does not have a very diverse hand in the VG market anymore-- all they've got anymore are mobile games, second-party development deals, and digital releases like Alien: Isolation. So if they pull mobile games when it's one of the only things they make anymore, it's something that should definitely be mentioned, especially since that section explicitly says they've been trying to focus more on digital/mobile games, through two independent sources, no less.

And again with the quality/standards semantics? I can't read the Sega Blog post because of this damn computer, but the excerpt quoted from a Sega spokesperson in the IGN article we're sourcing reads as such:

"A number of titles in our mobile catalog date back to the earliest iterations of devices," a SEGA spokesperson told IGN. "Mobile gameplay along with technological advancements have given players high expectations for what they should expect. Therefore it is in the best interest of players that we are investigating in our games and will remove the titles that no longer fit the mark we aim to reach. The on-going focus of our mobile games business is to treat our legacy IP with the utmost care, while also creating new titles that appeal to the modern mobile audience."

Tl;dr, the games on there were old and weren't up to snuff-- what else would you think that "mark they aim to reach" could be aside from quality? Let's not treat readers or ourselves like idiots. If IGN is confident enough in their assertion to parse the sugary PR-speak being used here and interpret it as a quality thing, that should be good enough. Now can we please put this particular point to bed, it's honestly ridiculous that it's up for debate. BlusterBlaster ^beep_boop 12:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Semantics aside, yes it doesn't matter. Different suggestion, how about expanding the mobile segments in general and different strategies for east and west? I'll do that...--Tripple-ddd (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

If you put as much effort into the articles themselves as you do with these talk pages, maybe there wouldn't be any issues with your edits. I'll continue to revert any edit you do to remove it, since other users say it should stay. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dissident93: Who is saying it should stay aside from you? BlusterBlaster seemed to accept the edits. Also read the added paragraph, keeping both sentences would be redundancy.--Tripple-ddd (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I thought that Tripple's edit was an alright approach at meeting us halfway. I would have been more concerned if they'd removed the IGN citation or something, but I didn't see anything questionable with it, as I'd mentioned in my editsum when I CE'd said addition. BlusterBlaster ^beep_boop 12:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

For some reason, I did not see this in the edit summary and thought that Tripple-ddd just reverted it again for no reason. It's fine now. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)