Template talk:Sega Sammy franchises

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Video games (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by the Sega task force.


What is the reason of removing Joe Montana Football, Sega Bass Fishing, Sega Rally, Sega Worldwide Soccer, ToeJam & Earl, Virtua Cop, Virtua Striker and Virtua Tennis from the template? --Mika1h (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


With the acquisition of Atlus by Sega, I believe that we should make organizers for this template (which should really be named "Sega-Sammy Franchises") to reflect its different brands, such as Atlus and Sega, with sub-franchises (Megami Tensei and Sonic franchises in particular) under franchise organizers. Nuke (talk) 04:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Should all of them really be added? If Atlus ceased releasing a franchise 10 years ago and never release it under Sega, is it really a "Sega Franchise", for example? Should it only be ones released by Sega? Sergecross73 msg me 23:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Maybe not all of them, but the most popular brands--Megami Tensei, Persona, Etrian Odyssey, and Trauma Center--probably should be added. What matters is that Sega owns the IP, even if it has been inactive for awhile or used to be owned by another company--right? After all, we don't list Visual Concepts' sports games, even though they were originally owned by Sega. Is there any reason not to list Company of Heroes, given that Sega published the most recent entry? Are Bayonetta or Condemned any less franchises than Vectorman or Jet Set Radio?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, Boyonetta, yes, as they only did one under Sega. But otherwise, I get your point. Maybe "Atlus" should be a separate, second subsection? I'd prefer that, so at least it's labeled as such ... Sergecross73 msg me 01:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Sega still owns the rights to Bayonetta and is overseeing the new game. My only question is, are two games enough to make a franchise?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I asked the same thing when cleaning up the franchise template for Nintendo. No one was able to give me an a sweet more detailed than "more than 1 game", so that's what I go by. Sergecross73 msg me 01:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
In that case, I see no reason not to re-add some of the franchises that were recently deleted.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm fine with that. If I removed any earlier, it was merely to get to the last stable version. I'm still a little iffy on Bayonetta, with them not really developing or publishing the second one, but I won't fight that one if I'm alone on it. I'm okay with adding Atlus ones as long as their in a separate section, not mixed in with the Sega ones... Sergecross73 msg me 18:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I've added more Sega franchises to the list, but have not added any Atlus franchises yet. Some of them--like Ecco the Dolphin--just seemed like shocking omissions in light of the more obscure and Japan-exclusive arcade titles that are listed. (Tell me, does Skies of Arcadia qualify as a franchise? Skies of Arcadia: Legends wasn't exactly a full-fledged sequel, but the game is referenced in the Sega Superstars series, and the case seems relatively ambiguous.) NuclearWizard, above, suggested renaming the template "Sega-Sammy franchises" and listing Atlus and Sega as separate brands. It occurs to me that Sammy, too, would be a separate brand (best known for the Guilty Gear games).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Since there were no objections, I've divided the three brands and moved the page to "Sega-Sammy franchises".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I support and like what you've done. (And yes, Skies of Arcadia should not be on there. It should at least be 2 separate games. Legends is just a slightly expanded port of the DC game, and a mini-game in a collection shouldn't be enough either.) Sergecross73 msg me 03:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring on inclusion[edit]

I've protected the page due to the excessive edit warring. Discuss reasons for or against inclusion, and ones that have consensus will be added. Sergecross73 msg me 23:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Is Landstalker really a Sega franchise?[edit]

Landstalker: The Treasures of King Nole is supposedly the first of a trilogy that also includes Lady Stalker: Challenge from the Past and Time Stalkers. Sega probably does own the rights to Landstalker, seeing as they published the game, but Lady Stalker is a Super Famicom game Sega had absolutely nothing to do with, which makes me doubt that Sega owns the rights to this "franchise" as a whole.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it shouldn't be on there, but again, if working on the Nintendo franchise template is any indication, there may be plenty of passer-by IPs trying to re-add it... Sergecross73 msg me 03:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Olympic games[edit]

Do Sega's official Olympics video games--Beijing 2008, Vancouver 2010, and London 2012--qualify as a franchise?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe they do. If anyone disagrees, explain why here.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I think so too. The develop them, and its one of their best selling series these days too... Sergecross73 msg me 13:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Would it be better to list/link to Mario and Sonic? That generic article about Olympic video games is not only terrible, but is about all Olympic based video games, not just Sega made ones... Sergecross73 msg me 15:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps. I wasn't really too sure what to link to. I chose the generic article because it mentioned the official games and the Mario & Sonic titles.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Guilty Gear[edit]

User: The Stick Man recently claimed in an edit summary that the Guilty Gear franchise is the sole property of developer Arc System Works and that Sammy has nothing to do with it outside of publishing a single Guilty Gear pachinko machine. While that is sheer nonsense, as Sammy has published Guilty Gear for many years, it does appear that Arc System Works bought back the rights to Guilty Gear in mid-2011.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Guilty Gear is still being published by Sega-Sammy, however. The latest release runs on Sega's RingEdge 2.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I did not claim that Sammy had absolutely nothing to do GG, I simply said that it was not a Sammy franchise.
However, upon taking a second look, if games published by a company are considered that company's franchise, then sure, revert my edits. I'll also admit my mistake of having assumed that Sammy was involved in only a pachinko machine. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 03:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Don't feel too bad, I thought they only did pachinko at first too... Sergecross73 msg me 13:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


After Burner has more than one full-fledged sequel: If After Burner 2 is more like After Burner 2.0, there are also sequels like After Burner Climax and After Burner: Black Falcon. The same is true of Space Harrier--Planet Harriers, at least, is a significantly different game. But what about something like Galaxy Force? Galaxy Force II is essentially a slightly improved version of the original. For the same reason Chu Chu Rocket!, Samba de Amigo, and Skies of Arcadia are not franchises, I don't believe Galaxy Force qualifies. Nevertheless, I want to make sure that this reasoning is not simply original research on my part. (Galaxy Force is hardly the only arcade game this applies to; it would be interesting to know if this is also true of F355 Challenge 2, as I suspect it is.)

In addition, I plan to remove Otogi from the list. Sega-Sammy doesn't own it and didn't develop it; they only published it in some regions.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Ownership, and why I think I made a mistake[edit]

Even though I'm the one who divided the template into Sega, Sammy, and Atlus; upon reflection, I feel this may have been a mistake. Why shouldn't all new IPs since the merger (Bayonetta, Valkyria Chronicles, Yakuza) be listed as "Sega Sammy franchises" instead of being listed solely under Sega? If Atlus creates a new franchise, should it be listed solely under them? If so, what happens if Relic develops a new property--Should they, too, be treated as a "separate brand"? Sega has published every Football Manager and NHL Eastside Hockey Manager game from the start, but perhaps Sports Interactive should be kept segregated from the rest of their titles on the grounds that they are not an in-house development studio! After a while, it becomes too arbitrary to imagine a stable unprotected version. I prefer the Sony franchises template, which just lists all of the franchises owned by Sony Computer Entertainment--many of which indeed (Lemmings, Shadow of the Beast, Wipeout) were simply bought by Sony--without any arbitrary distinctions. Of course, if we take the same route, then all of the licensed games will have to go (it's not like Sony doesn't have their own series of Bleach videogames). If ownership is our basis for inclusion, Guilty Gear will have to go, as ASW recently bought back the rights. (GG is actually a great example of how arbitrary the current template truly is--Why is it still a "Sammy franchise" even though they no longer own it? Because Sega-Sammy still publishes it? Because the latest GG runs on Sega's RingEdge 2? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever!) I would personally favor something like this "Franchises owned by Sega Sammy Holdings". (Additional note: Since it's "Sega Sammy Holdings," I should have renamed this template "Sega Sammy franchises"--not "Sega-Sammy franchises".)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I understand your concerns. The same sorts of concerns arose when I tried cleaning up the Nintendo one. It's hard to know where to draw the line. It's why I stopped working on that one beyond cleaning/keeping the absolute garbage entries on it.
My 2 cents: Let's think it over, and come up with a set of criteria, and just go with it. Judging by how none of the passerby edit warring IPs have even bothered to comment, nor has almost anyone, makes me think that, at least at moment, we're really the only ones who care. We may as formulate our way, and enforce it until/unless it's strongly contested.
I was actually looking over it earlier and thinking we should try to organize be massive mass of Sega entries. Not quite sure what would be easiest/best though. (By genre? Year? Dev team? Something else?) Sergecross73 msg me 00:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Organizing it by dev teams would be a nightmare. Genre would be relatively easy, if you want to go that route.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Just as long as we don't keep it as the giant mass it is right now.. Sergecross73 msg me 01:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Understood.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

If this was organized by development team, what would it look like?[edit]

This is the best I could come up with, keeping in mind all of Sega's many restructurings:

Initial visibility: currently defaults to autocollapse

To set this template's initial visibility, the |state= parameter may be used:

  • |state=collapsed: {{Sega Sammy franchises|state=collapsed}} to show the template collapsed, i.e., hidden apart from its title bar
  • |state=expanded: {{Sega Sammy franchises|state=expanded}} to show the template expanded, i.e., fully visible
  • |state=autocollapse: {{Sega Sammy franchises|state=autocollapse}}
    • shows the template collapsed to the title bar if there is a {{navbar}}, a {{sidebar}}, or some other table on the page with the collapsible attribute
    • shows the template in its expanded state if there are no other collapsible items on the page

If the |state= parameter in the template on this page is not set, the template's initial visibility is taken from the |default= parameter in the Collapsible option template. For the template on this page, that currently evaluates to autocollapse.

I will elaborate on my reasoning shortly, and explain potential problems with this model as well.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Basically, R&D1 is Amusement Vision and Smilebit, R&D2 is Sonic Team and United Game Artists, R&D3 is Overworks, AM Software R&D is everyone else (they focus on arcade games). Note that, unlike the Sega Rossos and Hitmakers of the world, both AM2 and Sonic Team still get to brand their games. Perhaps this isn't going back far enough; why is Alex Kidd listed under Sonic Team? Simple: Sega didn't start out with AM1-8 (Sonic Team being AM8). AM8 was originally a Sega Consumer Development Division led by Shinobu Toyoda, which worked on games like Alex Kidd and Phantasy Star. Other questions may be lingering in your mind: Noriyoshi Ohba was the head of AM7/Overworks, so why isn't his Sangokushi Taisen listed under R&D3 as opposed to AM R&D? Wow Entertainment and Overworks were merged to form Sega Wow in 2003; most of Overworks went to R&D3, but the rest of Sega Wow joined AM2, Hitmaker, and Rosso at AM R&D. AM R&D developed Sangokushi Taisen--unsurprisingly, since it's an arcade game. Why on Earth is Puyo Puyo not first-party, when we all know Sonic Team currently develops it? Well, this is the real crux of the matter: Puyo Puyo was originally made by Compile, an affiliate of Sega, not an in-house developer. For the purposes of this model template, I attribute each franchise to whatever team created it. Sonic Team did not create Puyo Puyo. On the other hand, Sonic Team did create the first Sega Superstars game, although the series has been handled by British developer Sumo Digital ever since.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Why not list each franchise under the developer that most recently worked on it as opposed to the progenitors? Because then Shinobi would be a Griptonite franchise, House of the Dead would be a Headstrong franchise, and Golden Axe would be a Secret Level franchise.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Why not just ignore Sega's restructuring and call the development teams whatever we want? Because Wikipedia needs to stay focused on the present, not the past.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
The biggest weakness to this method of organization is that Sega has partnered with many developers who have contributed only a single franchise, resulting in a pile of games marked under "other". Should every single one of those teams be listed? To avoid confusion in cases like Puyo Puyo and Sega Superstars, a seemingly ideal solution would be to list each game under the developer that is "best known" for working on the series (i.e., Sonic Team and Sumo Digital); although this could be hard to verify and/or lead to arbitrary edit wars.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I think this looks great! Far better than what I had envisioned taking it. I say go with this, and address any concerns if/when they pop up. Sergecross73 msg me 12:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Will do.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
It's done. BTW, since Noriyoshi Ohba's "Team Shinobi"/AM7/Overworks didn't design the original Shinobi arcade game, I have moved the franchise accordingly.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I know I keep tinkering with this template, and I'm sorry if I have appeared indecisive at times, but I think with this edit my OCD has finally been satisfied.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
No problem, they're all well-thought out and with edit summary, so its fine. Sergecross73 msg me 23:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

Adding Border Break (talk) 08:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Sergecross73 msg me 17:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I assume he means Border Break: Sega Network Robot Wars.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Was there a sequel?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
If you know where to put it, please go ahead. Otherwise, we need the requester to be more specific. Closing request meanwhile. --Stfg (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Ohhh, I see. I thought it was a formatting request or something. I didn't recognize that game title... Sergecross73 msg me 20:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I would know where to put it, but it doesn't qualify as a franchise unless there is a sequel, and I am not aware of one.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It's one of the most profitable of Sega's Arcade games, and get's continuously updated since 2009 till today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but that still doesn't make it a "franchise" or a "series". The requirement here is that at least 2 games are needed to make it a "franchise". As is, it just a single game, not a series. Sergecross73 msg me 19:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Well you have the end word, so will it be. However, it's also added on Sega's Japan milestone website (along with other series on the template). Also "World Club Champion Football", "Love and Berry" are not franchises as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Love and Berry, according to the article, had 2 releases, one in arcades, and one for DS. WCCF seemed to have yearly iterations according to the article. I'm not personally familiar with these two, so I don't know for certain, but going off the articles, it looks like they'd qualify... Sergecross73 msg me 20:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: My reasoning for rehauling the template: Atlus is now under Sega completly and not Sega Sammy, so the Sega Sammy franchises name is redundant. Also the grouping of three console, one arcade studio, other, PlatinumGames, Treasure doesn't make much sense. I get that that the latter are fan favourites, but that is still subjective, giving them space over other companies. The "other" section is also confusing as it includes Sega Japan developed titles - like Miku or Fantasy Zone which are hard to categorize in dev teams. Which brings to my last point - it is better to group the franchises simply under one Sega of Japan group, as it is still unknown which exact division is behind a title that Sega of Japan makes.

I'm more okay with your second version, I just wasn't happy with the first one, as I said in the edit summary, I don't think "Arcade" was a good section considering how many of their Arcade series had games for both home consoles and arcades (like Daytona or Crazy Taxi). I'm okay with your section, though I'm not sure if its an improvement or not. If "TimesAreAChanging" came in and put up a good argument in favor of the version he created, I feel like it would be hard to disagree with him... Sergecross73 msg me 19:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't feel strongly about the changes to the template, not least of all because my version was partly based on information difficult to prove using reliable sources. That said, I remain conflicted about what to make of Tripple-ddd as an editor. Is his occasionally disruptive behavior the product of English not being his first language? Is he truly the Sega expert he presents himself as? (Are Love and Berry and Let's Make!! in the wrong alphabetical order? Not if Tripple-ddd is going by the full Japanese names of these franchises... but then what is up with Oasis?)
Fantasy Zone was listed under "other" because I heard conflicting stories about who developed the game; the Genesis version, if not the original, was really made by Sunsoft. Perhaps I was completely wrong to doubt that the first game was the product of Sega Japan, but I wonder whether Tripple-ddd is in any position to say.
Tripple-ddd says that Treasure and PlatinumGames should not be given special attention, but listing their games under "Sega Japan" could be the more misleading approach. To clarify, I did not single out those companies because they are fan favorites, but because—unlike all of the other studios whose work was included under "Other"—they produced multiple franchises for Sega.
Tripple-ddd has combined Sega Europe, Sega America, and Sega-published games developed by American or European third parties under "Sega West"—and conflated all Sega-published games developed in Japan with "Sega of Japan", including those developed by the external studios Treasure and Platinum. In that light, it almost seems strange that he is content with keeping Atlus as a separate brand—not that I want to give him any ideas.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Atlus publisher their own games, which say, Creative Assembly doesn't.--Tripple-ddd (talk) 08:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Questioning whether or not some of these Sega franchises are notable to be on this template[edit]

Series such Clockwork Knight, Dinosaur King, Eternal Champions, Headhunter, Kingdom Conquest, Oshare Majo, Mushiking, and Beyond Oasis are either too obscure or dormant for me to think these titles are noteworthy to this template. Uuruuseiyo (talk) 05:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

  • I think that if they don't have a series article, then they could be removed. But then, we are still removing legit Sega IPs from the navbox, so you could debate that as well. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  • We can figure out inclusion criteria for inclusion, but we'll need more objective standards that "dormant" or "too obscure". Like, we'd have to define where to draw the line on gongs like that... Sergecross73 msg me 01:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's why I think maybe we should just settle on games that have series articles, or at least character ones like Alex Kidd. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
A franchises' dormancy or obscurity should not dictate as to whether it should be removed. Take Growlanser for example. It's had multiple entries, but the latest release was not until 2011, and even then, it's a really obscure Atlus franchise (as Career Soft was a subsidiary of Atlus). But despite it's obscurity and dormancy, it still fits the criteria of a franchise. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 09:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree with your example of Growlanser, but I was talking more about some of these things like...Zaxxon or Love and Berry, which have had decades in between releases and/or been dormant for a decade. The type of thing where it seems rather clear that its not exactly a prominent Sega IP. But that was just a passing thought from over a year ago, obviously we haven't moved to implement anything like that. I've been disappointed that we've never garnered much interest from WP:VG participants in setting any standardized guidelines for these templates. I mean, we can always try again, but in the past, few people participated... Sergecross73 msg me 12:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
In that case, I recommend that you try again. Who knows, maybe the community is larger enough to reach an overall consensus. How long ago did you last query this to WP:VG? Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 13:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I think its been a year or two. I was getting increasingly frustrated in the constant changes made to the respective Nintendo template, and there were a few ideas thrown out (like only adding entries that have a dedicated "series" article) but no clear consensus on it. Without a clear consensus, I just went back monitoring it more casually, removing the overtly bogus entries. I can start up a new discussion on it if you like though. Sergecross73 msg me 13:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Well then, if you are open to a new discussion on the matter then I'm in complete support of it. I'd recommend to go for it because the amount of editors for video game articles is far larger now than it was two years ago. Plus, it can finally answer the question of the original post in a more consensus manner. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Bonanza Bros[edit]

So, it looks like people are arguing over iffy entries to the template again. Starting a discussion here on it. I'm personally against Bonanza Bros. It appears it was really only one game with a bunch of ports, and some supposed "spinoffs" that neither shared the name nor the genre of gameplay. That's too weak to be considered some sort of "series" of Sega's. Sergecross73 msg me 20:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

  • I agree. Ports and remasters do not contribute to a series because they're fundamentally the same product in a modified format. As a general example, Kingdom Hearts Chain of Memories for the Game Boy Advance, Re: Chain of Memories for the PlayStation 2 and Re: Chain of Memories HD for the PlayStation 3/PlayStation 4 are all fundamentally the same game despite the modifications made to fit their respective hardware. And if a spinoff of a game is not developed by the same developer throughout (e.g: Chunsoft/Spike Chunsoft on the Mystery Dungeon/Pokemon Mystery Dungeon/Etrian Mystery Dungeon series), then that shouldn't constitute as a series either. A lot of companies make Breakout clones, but that doesn't mean that games like Arkanoid is a spinoff to Breakout. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I still argue that we should only include links to actual series articles, and if one doesn't exist, then it isn't really that notable to belong here. A category can instead be used, which is probably better than using a navbox in general. Click below for an example of how the navbox would look with my proposal.
  • Now, this actually excludes some notable franchises such as Out Run, but since those don't actually have a series page, it wasn't included. That being said, if we could all gain consensus on the missing franchises to be added on a case-by-case basis, I think we could solve the issue with the navbox. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
    • In theory, that seems to be a respectable idea to prevent confusion, until you come to realise that games like 7th Dragon Code and Sakura Wars are not displayed. Those are games with clearly defined sequels, but because they don't have a dedicated series page, they don't fit in that hypothetical navigational box. I think the current navigational box is fine as it is. I've had instances where I was proven that a certain entry that I added is not a franchise. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 00:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
      • Well I don't agree. These shouldn't just be an info dump of every single Sega game with a sequel. Categories are better suited for that. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
        • But isn't that the purpose of a franchise navigational box, to add entries to a game series with acknowledged sequels? And let's say we go with the category idea, how do you propose we go about that? Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 09:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
    • This is an awful idea if you ask me. For one thing, you would be removing a bunch of notable properties like After Burner or Sakura Wars, which still follow the guidelines for franchises, and this will only encourage others to simply re-add all of them again and again, creating more problems to deal with. Templates are a whole lot easier to navigate (and even find) than categories, so saying that categories should replace this is something I disagree with. The template layout is just fine. Namcokid47 (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Yes, I've been trying to think of better inclusion criteria without any luck. I like that the "series article required" approach cuts out a lot of these obscure old , two part entries that no one really considers an actual "franchise", but as you say, it also cuts down the list too heavily, as something like Sakura Wars's is a core Sega franchise (in Japan), so it really shouldn't be omitted. I also fear it could lead to an influx of poorly conceived/sloppy series articles being created just to warrant inclusion. Something needs to be done, as its a recurring issue at all of these "company franchise" templates for video game companies, but I don't know what. Sergecross73 msg me 20:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
        • Agreed; I'm all in for trimming down these templates and editing them, but this series article idea just seems to make more problems than solutions in my book. Then again, I haven't been able to think of anything better myself (this isn't also just for the Sega template, the Bandai Namco one is absolutely atrocious, and it looks like Nintendo is getting there as well). Namcokid47 (talk) 04:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Apologies for necroing a year-old thread, but I didn't want to make a new discussion when there's already one of the same question. Seems pretty hypocritical of me to say it, since I was the original person who added it in, but I think Bonanza Bros. shouldn't be in the template - doesn't seem to be a franchise whatsoever, aside from some ports and a remake for the PS2 (part of those Sega Ages 2500 games). Puzzle & Action, however, which is a supposed spin-off series, has enough entries to warrant itself a spot on the template. Not that I'm really gonna add it myself - this template is enormous as is. Just my two cents. Namcokid47 (talk) 07:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I still think my original proposal works. We should change the scope of these type of navboxes from any IP published under the company to only listing those that have series/franchise articles, with a few special cases like After Burner or Sakura Wars as mentioned above. Anything else can either go into a list or category. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
      • As I have stated several times before in the past (including this very own discussion), I'm strongly against the idea, for two reasons. 1, it cuts down on the template too much. I understand your point in that it cuts down these teeny tiny series, which I like, but I don't like how it cuts down too heavily on the list. Stuff like Out Run, After Burner and Sakura Wars are prominent Sega IPs, and not having them there doesn't make any sense, considering they more than qualify as a Sega franchise. 2, it will just make more work for everyone else. My fear with your idea is that this new rule will lead to people creating poorly-done, unfinished series pages just so they can be added into the template. Not to mention that we would be getting hundreds of people, I imagine, adding these to the templates despite this new rule. My point is that it does more bad than it does good - it will simply replace a problem with a larger problem, and create more work for all of us to do, which I imagine isn't what you intended. To add onto your point of adding the more notable properties to the list, even if they don't have series articles, also creates a problem - what would be the limit? Sooner or later people will add so many of them that this new rule would be completely useless and we would have come around full circle. Namcokid47 (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
        • Point 1 is valid, but I don't see people mass-creating series articles just to add them here per point 2 (people don't do this just to add the articles to the series parameter in infoboxes). It's way more likely people just link back to the first game, creating a situation like we currently have. Like I've said, we could make exceptions for certain series, which is basically what we are already doing. Anything else that gets removed here simply belongs on the list of Sega games page or category instead. The current status quo of us randomly adding and removing games just based on whim is what's causing problems. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
          • Im not opposed to your proposal, but I don’t think it should be enforced unless you had a WikiProject-level consensus, and I feel like those discussions could spiral out of control and be a headache (like past ones about defining the generations or if Switch is a handheld or home console) so I haven’t spearheaded those discussions... Sergecross73 msg me 00:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)