|
|
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | ==Should this really be named 2K Czech as opposed to Illusion Softworks?==
| |
| − | Right now this article basically states "This is a company owned by 2K" when 2K didn't exist until 2005, and ONLY after buying [[Visual Concepts]] from Sega themselves. At that point Sega was already out of the console market and 2K Czech didn't exist until 2008, three years after 2K bought Visual Concepts.
| |
| | | | |
| − | Personally I don't see a problem with having the page named Illusion Softworks while also specifying that they are NOW known as 2K Czech after 2K bought Visual Concepts (Thus 2K was formed in the first place) and then saying Illusion Softworks was also bought and then named that. But so far 2K and Sega have done nothing with each other besides 2K buying an internal Sega company in January 2005.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | It's not necessarily misinformation but I feel like it needs to be specified. What does everyone else think? [[User:JaxTH|JaxTH]] ([[User talk:JaxTH|talk]]) 02:09, 8 September 2021 (EDT)
| |
| − | :I was under the impression our policy was to have the company's most recently-known name as its title, but I'm admittedly not the best with policy (it's just how I've seen all our other company pages formatted.) It's also why it refers to 2K Czech as being a division of 2K. So while I would normally say that its current iteration is correct, I think I understand what you're saying, and I'll rephrase it as a question because honestly I find it really interesting too:
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :"If a company is currently known by its New Name, but they only released a single Sega-relevant game under its Old Name, do we name the article its Old or New Name?"
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :In this specific case, maybe Illusion Softworks would be more accurate? I'm curious for more thoughts on this as well.
| |
| − | :[[User:CartridgeCulture|CartridgeCulture]] ([[User talk:CartridgeCulture|talk]]) 03:59, 8 September 2021 (EDT)
| |