Questions on the tags for companies
|#1 by phantomjs|
2022-05-14 at 23:00
|< report >Was scrolling around VNDB and landed on Saga Planet's page. Saw that someone added that SP is no longer under Visual Arts but the parent producer is still VA. Went to VA's page and saw that SP was listed as a subsidiary of VA. If the parent producer tag is removed in SP's page, SP's name also disappears in VA's subsidiary page. I thought that made perfect sense so I went and remove the parent compnay tag but someone reinstated it. |
Curious - what is SP's current relationship with VA?
Also, what does parent producer means? Using SP as an example, does that mean their titles are (still) being produced by VA or it means something else? Also, an imprint of a company is basically a sub-brand of that company right?
Thanks in advance for helping, guysLast modified on 2022-05-14 at 23:02
|#2 by phantomjs|
2022-05-16 at 22:44
|< report >No one here knows anything on this? O.o.....|
|#3 by Ezezin|
2022-05-17 at 00:43
|< report >d4#3:|
|#4 by phantomjs|
2022-05-17 at 01:34
|< report >#3|
Friend, that answers non of my enquries except for the very last one (¬_¬”).....
|#5 by Ezezin|
2022-05-17 at 01:56
|< report >*sight*:|
1º: I have no idea and I don't know enough Japanese to make a proper search.
2º: Yes, titles produced or published by a subsidiary are considered a separate work from the parent company. To make things easier on you: SAGA PLANETS and Visual Arts are considered different entities with their own games. Sometimes the parent company will publish the games made by their subsidiaries.
3º: Already answered.
4º:This edit is correct. You can give more information in the description if you wish. If they changed their name, create a new producer with the relation "Succeeded by".Last modified on 2022-05-17 at 01:57
|#6 by phantomjs|
2022-05-17 at 03:13
|< report >#5|
4º - I still don't get it. If you say that edit is correct, then what does ''No longer under Visual Arts as of November 2019'' mean? Also, if that edit is correct, then Saga Planets are still a subsidiary of Visual Arts despite being ''No longer under Visual Arts as of November 2019''?
Also, the information inside #3 is a bit confusing to me. Firstly, there's no exact definition on producer, but I assume that's because it's self explanatory (a producer of a Visual Novel is the one producing it). So Parent Producer means it's product by that parent producer right? However, inside the link in #3, ''Reverse of Subsidiary - current producer is a subsidiary of the selected producer.''. In the case of SP, I would have thought that means VA is the producer for SP's titles. Also, does this mean SP is still a subsidiary of VA? I thought they are ''No longer under Visual Arts as of November 2019''????
Thanks for your help, friend :)
|#7 by Ezezin|
2022-05-17 at 04:02
|< report >VNDB has two ways of distinguish a producer: who developed (or created a game) and who published (in most cases who sells the game, or in the case of translations and mods, who made them). The producer relation has nothing to do to with the VN entries.|
Speaking solely from what I can see in the visual novels entries, SAGA PLANETS makes and publishes their own games, Visual Arts doesn't seem involved in the creation process, otherwise you would see SAGA PLANETS games in Visual Arts page (and this is not case).
if that edit is correct, then Saga Planets are still a subsidiary of Visual Arts despite being ''No longer under Visual Arts as of November 2019''You actually make a good point. On one side I would update the producer entry to show this change; but I don't want to remove a relation and loose valuable information. As you can see, we don't have a relation for former subsidiary. Besides, it seems it's not as simple as it looks. Basically, I don't know how to proceed :/
Personally, I would ask someone who may know more about that company or do more research before editing the relation; but in the mean time, explain their current status in SAGA PLANETS description (with sources, of course).Last modified on 2022-05-17 at 04:09
|#8 by phantomjs|
2022-05-17 at 20:58
|< report >link|
Anyone knows what this guy meant in this revision? In the case of Saga Planets, the Parent Producer, or Subsidairy as defined by VNDB, should remain as Visual Arts inside the VDNB entry page even though the Parent Company aren't Visual Arts anymore or they aren't a Subsidiary (again by VNDB's definition) of Visual Arts anymore?? (Doesn't makes sense to me as they are ''No longer under Visual Arts as of November 2019'')Last modified on 2022-05-17 at 21:13
|#9 by alto|
2022-05-20 at 19:33
|< report >As far as I know, Visual Arts acts as a franchiser. Not sure which developers are in-house (Key?) and which are "partner brands" who are franchisees. Given that, I'd guess most finance their own games and give VA a cut for their distribution/support.|
If Saga Planets no longer has a publishing relationship with VA, which I think is originally sourced from here, then I agree it's strange for VNDB to keep the relation. Doing some quick research, while not conclusive a split does seem very likely:
- They switched to KiriKiri from SiglusEngine (VA's engine) from Kin'iro Loveriche -Golden Time- onwards
- The physical releases from r60685 in Feb 2019 onwards have "（株）ラッセル" as the associated company with the JAN - link Every previous release I checked back to 1998 has "ビジュアルアーツ"
- They started hosting some things on the sagapla.net domain vs VA's product.co.jp like link
- For new titles DMM now has e.g. "sgpl_0001" vs "vsat_0229"
- Scrubbing through ED videos on YouTube, Visual Arts is credited with Sales, PR, music and the engine for Kin'iro Loveriche but nothing in the games after
In the absence of a former parent/subsidiary relation, imo removing the relation and adding a note (maybe on both sides) is the best option. That said, I also don't know how VNDB treats these changes. On one hand it's silly to have publishers who died in the 80s listed as parent producers for companies making games today, especially if there's no dates or notes with an explanation. On the other it's nice to have the relationship graph. From a general more general DB perspective, I think preferring current information is the sanest option.
|#10 by miyanoshiho|
2022-05-21 at 01:16
|< report >Maybe we need a new relation called Former Subsidiary?|
That way keeps information up to date as well as retaining the connection in the relationship graph.
|#11 by phantomjs|
2022-06-08 at 23:58
|< report >#alto|
Thanks for your info, guys. Using this thread as a basis, I think I'm originally right to remove Visual Arts as the parent producer for Saga Planets.
Gonna start an edit war with that Jazz957 guy when I have the energy to (too busy and tired currently)
Not a bad idea imoLast modified on 2022-06-08 at 23:59
|#12 by Ezezin|
2022-06-09 at 00:21
|< report >|
Gonna start an edit warNo edit warring please. Try to talk with the user in question before editing.Last modified on 2022-06-09 at 00:22
|#13 by Ileca|
2022-06-10 at 00:26
|< report >No, you are not right to remove VA's relation to SP and start an edit war. "That Jazz957 guy" has added so many producer's relations that I wouldn't be surprised if he single-handedly handled them all. Sure, it can be subject to debate but that's how it's done right now. For example link where all those brands were transferred to Ranba Amuse. According to you, all those brands should be unlinked from B-Eye Communications and if, let's say, that we had proof that even the dead brands were transferred too, then B-Eye... should be removed from existence as we don't keep producers without relations? I don't think this is the right thing to do. Relations should reflect past and present, not just present. The note field is here to explain the state of the relations. If you remove past relations, you will have to write on every single brand that it initially belonged to B-Eye. The relation graph will morph at the slightest variation, erasing the past at the same time. It's really hard to write notes about something as opaque as companies' organization.|
I agree that a way to show that a relation became obsolete is a good idea.
Splitting might be a solution but then you have transfer of rights and split doesn't solve that. Also, imagine splitting a brand just because of money shenanigans at the top that doesn't affect the brand itself or so little.
|#14 by phantomjs|
2022-06-10 at 03:06
|< report >#13|
"That Jazz957 guy" has added so many producer's relations that I wouldn't be surprised if he single-handedly handled them all. Sure, it can be subject to debate but that's how it's done right nowAre you saying Jazz957 has some sort of admin rights or is designated by Yorhel or one of the mods here to be in charge of managing Visual Novel companies relationships? And is there any rules set in stone here at VNDB that says the way Jazz957 handled this situation is the official way to handle this situation? If so, can any Mods confirm this?
For example link where all those brands were transferred to Ranba Amuse. According to you, all those brands should be unlinked from B-Eye Communications and if, let's say, that we had proof that even the dead brands were transferred too, then B-Eye... should be removed from existence as we don't keep producers without relations?I don't know much about the companies in the above example except for the information in your post. Going by that, yes, shouldn't the Parent Producer tag, which by all indications suggest it's the *current* active main company of so-and-so, be removed from all those brands which were transferred? Or are you saying that tag should remain unmodified despite the fact it's no longer the *current* Parent Producer? Btw, using your example, I never once suggest B-Eye should be removed from existence
Going back to the original topic and using the information in this thread as a basis, Visual Arts is clearly no longer the *current* Parent Producer of Saga Planets but the *former* Parent Producer instead. Wouldn't removing the tag in Saga Planet's VNDB page and putting in a note like 'Former Parent Company - Visual Arts' be far more logical? (Btw on the edit war thing - I'm just anticipating Jazz957 will resists this change. I'm not doing it for fun or anything like that)
|#15 by Ileca|
2022-06-10 at 05:53
|< report >No, nothing like that, just giving credit where credit is due. Unless he messed up since years and nobody noticed, he reverted you for a reason (yeah, I know, argument from authority, bad). Also implying that being the current consensus he helped forging, this little change actually will necessitate a massive amount of edits as keeping with the current state of companies is not what we are doing right now. So this is a decision that necessitate a bigger consensus before doing anything.|
I think the current state of affairs should stay, the same way we don't suddenly remove producers that lost the rights to releases. If improvement there should be, it's by asking for a way to flag relations as obsolete. Probably more complicated than it sounds like because in 2022 a lot of companies are dead. Does that mean that all their relationship should be flagged as obsolete/expired? Looks like a lot of work to keep up with the present.
I never once suggest B-Eye should be removed from existenceI am not accusing you of being motivated by the erasure of brands, just saying that your way of doing will lead to that. You will have orphan producers because they went under or transferred rights, etc.
Relations can be followed and producers clicked on. If you start removing relations and deleting producers, you will have to rely on notes. Let's say you remove B-Eye: what would you do to find out all the brands it was the parent producer before going extinct? You can't because B-Eye's entry doesn't exist anymore and you would have to know Ranba Amuse took over.
|#16 by phantomjs|
2022-06-10 at 06:34
|< report >#15|
1) Just because Jazz957 has been doing this for years doesn't automatically maker his way of handling this right. Could be that no one bothered to argue with him / go into an edit war with him over a relatively unimportant detail (you certainly find a lot less warring topics on this than, say, VN play length).
The information in this thread certainly seems to be siding with me (feel free to correct me otherwise). Even your response post if I'm not misreading it
just saying that your way of doing will lead to that. You will have orphan producers because they went under or transferred rightsI don't get the 2nd paragraph of your post. Again, you seems to be saying I am suggesting to remove Parent Producers companies which no longer has any active subsidiaries or something. That's not what I'm saying. I don't see why once active but now dead Parent Producers should be deleted. VNDB is a database after all.
3) While it is a lot of work to do this, I'm not suggesting we VNDB users start mass correcting entries in the nearby future or something. Just let it be a case by case basis - like in the case of Saga Planets / Visual Arts, I found this discrepancy, I correct it. Other entries will be corrected upon the users or Mods's discretion.
Relations can be followed and producers clicked on. If you start removing relations and deleting producers, you will have to rely on notes. Let's say you remove B-Eye: what would you do to find out all the brands it was the parent producer before going extinct? You can't because B-Eye's entry doesn't exist anymore and you would have to know Ranba Amuse took over.And what's wrong with relying on notes? That's far more accurate than Saga Planet's current VNDB page where it appears that Visual Arts is still the *CURRENT* Parent Producer (and using VNDB's own guideline definition , Saga Planets by definition are still a subsidiary of Visual Arts), but strangely, they are no longer under Visual Arts since 2019, no? Wouldn't my suggestion (remove Visual Arts as the Parent Producer of Saga Planets and leave a note that they were once under Visual Arts) be far more logical?
And why again are you saying B-Eye's VNDB page should be deleted? I never once said that kind of thing. Why should their entry be deleted just because it's currently empty inside a *database* website?Last modified on 2022-06-10 at 06:42
|#17 by alto|
2022-06-10 at 11:14
|< report >I've not seen consensus on handling producers beyond producers with no relations get removed. At the time I recall some were against adding holding companies with no game credits when people started added them. |
There does look to be consensus for the following:
- Having obsolete or historic relationship information in the database is not a bad thing
- It's less then ideal to have relationships that are no longer correct
If neither adding notes or keeping the current relationships are great then maybe we should be talking about what to ask Yorhel for.
|#18 by phantomjs|
2022-06-11 at 03:03
|< report >#17|
Well, you can't please everyone. Important thing is whether Jazz957's way of handling this is correct is, at the very least, debatable, but having factual information presented here at VNDB is important (at least you all seems to agree to me).
I'll wait for a while for more response / feedback before I consider getting into an edit war with Jazz957 - I don't believe he will be happy with my meddling into his territory (<---info from Ileca)
|#19 by Jazz957|
2022-06-11 at 04:16
|< report >Actually I have no intention of participating in any edit war with you, as I have no interest in taking your bait. I'll leave it to the mods to handle it because I have better things to do.Last modified on 2022-06-11 at 04:19|
You must be logged in to reply to this thread.