Talk:List of Sonic Team games

Untitled

Moved Sonic team Gameography out of the main article--Cube b3 (talk) 02:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sonic Team doesn't actually have anything to do with Phantasy Star Online 2 so I've removed it from this article. Z026445 (talk) 06:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite

I rewrote this article, using List of Enix games as a template. Just wanted to let you all know. (Notifying folks I see often across Sega/Sonic articles: @TheJoebro64: @Sergecross73: @Popcornduff: @Dissident93: @TheTimesAreAChanging:) It still needs more work however. One idea I have is to split the games into different series tables on this same page. Like have a table just for Sonic series, Puyo Puyo series, Phantasy Star Online, etc. The release years should also be replaced with launch dates, perhaps a publisher column added, and separate lines should be entered for different console releases like the Enix list. Of course we need references as well. I think Sonic Team has a list of their games on their website. TarkusAB^talk 16:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The publisher for every single one of these games would just be Sega, so that wouldn't be needed. The article is so bare bones now that it may be possible to just merge this back to Sonic Team. Look at PlatinumGames and Monolith Soft for good recent examples. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Good work. I'll begin adding references to the article. After that, we can see if we should merge it or split into series sub-sections. JOEBRO64 20:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Listing Sonic 2, CD, 3&K, and Ristar

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Re @Dissident93, [1]—if reliable sources say that brown cows make chocolate milk, should we add that to the cow article? Sega has never retroactively credited these games to Sonic Team; the only sources I've seen that credit them are non-Sega retrospectives—whereas official retrospectives, like this, do not credit them. Pinging users involved in previous discussions: @Red Phoenix, Indrian, TheTimesAreAChanging, Sergecross73, TarkusAB, and Popcornduff. JOEBRO64 10:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I feel like we've already to to a conclusion on a lot of these:

• Sonic 2 - According to its Sega Forever listing, Sonic Team was an original developer. That's straight from Sega.
• Sonic CD - This Eurogamer feature mentions Sonic Team as a developer. Even if its a secondary set of devs who went my the name as well, it's still their name. I don't think its right to rewrite history and say "well it's not the Sonic Team" - if Sega called them that, then so should we. But rather, I think it would be better to document the different Sonic Team make ups either in the game article or the Sonic Team article. Or maybe even add a little EFN note next to Sonic Team in the Sonic CD infobox, explaining this.
• Ristar - We already resolved this like last June - it was decided that it was best to list it as by "Sega", and then explain in the prose the reasons why its often attributed to Sonic Team.
• Sonic 3/K - This is the only one I'm unsure on.

Overall, I think the issue is that honestly, I think we're putting more thought into this than Sega ever did. I don't think they really bothered to so closely define what Sonic Team was during the Genesis era. As pointed out in some of our past discussions on talk pages, the issue is that Sega didn't even really externally refer to them as Sonic Team until Nights into Dreams came out, but they whole reason they did that is to identify the fact that it was being made by many of the staff who made the classic Genesis Sonic games, and as such, I don't think it particularly makes sense to scrub the Sonic Team names from all of those games either... Sergecross73 msg me 13:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, having done the research on this extensively, I'm inclined to agree with Sergecross73 here. It's demonstrated already that yes, Yuji Naka's team at Sega CS3 was the first division known as Sonic Team, and that the name goes back to 1991 when the team with Sega's consumer development division that worked on the game called themselves Sonic Team for the game's release, but truthfully, we've done more work on trying to figure this out than the actual sources have at this point. It's my personal opinion that removing them is the most accurate option, but at this point, while our work has been phenomenal at getting this straight, it's getting to be borderline OR, and it is OR when we say something isn't by process of elimination and contradiction against reliable, secondary sources (unless another reliable, secondary source states that it is not, or states something incongruent). Sega's early division history is not well documented, and that's part of what leads to this issue. At this point, I think what's best might be to leave them and note in a separate column who from Sonic Team was involved (i.e. with Sonic 2, 3, and K: Naka, Yasuhara, and other developers from Japan -- maybe a tip of the hat to Takashi Iizuka with 3 and K; Ohshima on Sonic CD). It's not my preferred option because I do think it raises a small concern of accuracy, but I think it may be the best solution for complying with WP:NOR. Red Phoenix ^talk 13:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we can come up with some sort of solution with efn notes/explanations explaining these sorts of things... Sergecross73 msg me 15:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• I was recently organizing my games and noticed something I never had before. My Japanese Mega Drive copies of Sonic 2, 3, and Sonic CD all say "Sonic Team Presents" on the cover...great...more evidence to throw into the pile. I think Red is right that we are trying to hard to figure this out ourselves instead of reiterating what the sources say. Some RSs say it was Sonic Team, some say otherwise. I think the EFN solution is a fair compromise, something like:

The game is credited to Sonic Team per A, B, and C and credited to STI per X, Y, and Z. The development team referred to themselves as Sonic Team informally. Officially, they were members of STI. The Sonic Team brand was not established as an official division of Sega until 1996.

TarkusAB^talk 19:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I could support this. Keep them, but explain that Sonic Team wasn't official at the time and they were officially developed by another team. The Ristar article does something like this in development. JOEBRO64 19:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Sonic Team is just a division of Sega, it's not like it was outsourced to a third-party or something. But besides that, I don't oppose the proposed note. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Why did you remove these games after people provided official sources that attributed them to Sonic Team, and the consensus was to keep them, TheJoebro64? Your justification that "Sonic Team isn't credited on them" makes little sense, considering that Sega Technical Institute isn't credited on them either. Monobyte (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

If I recall right, it was a result of consensus at discussions at various other places. The Ristar one I agree with, it was discussed on its talk page, and I think it's best described at Ristar#Development. The Sonic ones I didn't particularly agree with, but I think I was outnumbered on those ones. Sergecross73 msg me 20:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@Monobyte: It has already been demonstrated that “Sonic Team” wasn’t officially a thing until 1996, minus them calling it a “team name” for 1991’s Sonic the Hedgehog. Naka said so in an interview in 2000 with the UK magazine Edge, and 1996 was also when Sonic Team was installed as Sega CS3 officially and branded all their games with “Sonic Team Presents”. The first of those was Nights. That some sources said they were Sonic Team because they assumed so doesn’t change these facts. When a reliable source can be proven inaccurate in this manner, we should not consider it. (That being said, I would not consider myself learned up enough on Ristar to speak on that particular one). Red Phoenix ^talk 21:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Am I missing something? I would think Sega calling the team that made the classic games "Sonic Team" makes it official. The old games used the Sonic Team branding in the Japanese box art and in-game for Sonic 1. Modern Sega attributes those games to Sonic Team too. Them being developed by STI doesn't discredit that. A game can have more than one developer.

And what's with the double standard with Sonic 1 being attributed to ST but not the others?

Btw, I looked at the talk pages of those games and the only place I found a discussion on the matter was Sonic 2. The games being attributed to STI alone doesn't look like a consensus to me. I counted 3 people in favor of ST, 2 in favor of STI, and 1 in favor of Sega. Monobyte (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

So what do you define as Sonic Team? Is it a studio? Then that didn’t exist until 1996. Is it the team of Naka, Ohshima, and Yasuhara? They worked together on Sonic 1 but not as a threesome on any of the rest, some minor idea exchange notwithstanding. If nothing else, Sonic 1 is the questionable one in your analogy and really only stands because of what reliable sources say in calling it Sonic Team, which yes, they put on the game and Naka called it a “team name” for the development of that game. And no, I wouldn’t trust someone at Sega saying it was Sonic Team because they didn’t label which internal studio did what pretty much across the board. That almost all comes from secondary sources. What’s more likely is someone at Sega working on this went “Oh, it’s a Sonic game, so it must be from Sonic Team.” Let’s be real here - whether or not a source is “reliable”, if it can be demonstrated to be false by other reliable sources, it should not be considered as fact. Red Phoenix ^talk 00:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

How do you define Sonic Team? Simple. Sonic Team is the team that made Sonic 1, and then went on to make games like Sonic 2, Sonic & Knuckles, Nights, Sonic Adventure, Sonic Heroes, etc.

The devs behind Nights weren't random people who came out of nowhere. It was the same team that made the classic Sonic games. Yeah, some members left or joined between games. That's normal, it still happens today. I don't get why you're trying to treat them as separate when Sega doesn't. Monobyte (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

It's simple: Sonic Team is a development studio, not a group of people. Naka, Yasuhara, and Ohshima used it as a team name one time and developed the game as part of Sega CD ("Consumer Development", the console games division). Naka and Ohshima created a brand out of it with Nights and actually had their own studio (CS3, later R&D 8 or AM8, depending on your source), then a separate company in 2000 until 2004 as SONICTEAM, Ltd. before being reintegrated into Sega's other development divisions (GE1, then CS2). That studio is Sonic Team - there was no Sonic Team before Sega CS3, but we refer to Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game) as developed by it because reliable sources say so based on the team name interpretation. If you want to get technical, Yasuhara quit after Sonic 3 and Knuckles and didn't have further involvement with Naka and Ohshima. It's also worth noting that Sonic Heroes isn't truly Sonic Team either... it sort of is, but it was actually a subsidiary of Sonic Team called Sonic Team USA, headed by current Sonic Team head Takashi Iizuka and developed in San Francisco, not out of Sonic Team's studio in Tokyo.

As you're a new user, Monobyte, I would encourage you to read some of the articles related to this subject, and refer to their references. That would include Sonic the Hedgehog 2, Sega Technical Institute, Sonic Team, etc. This is a subject area that Wikipedians have been researching with a lot of depth and improved greatly to make them recognized as quality articles in the encyclopedia. They are very well researched to iron out these facts. Red Phoenix ^talk 01:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it's up to Sega to decide what Sonic Team is. If Sega calls the dev team that made the classic games Sonic Team, then they're Sonic Team.

I also believe that none of those articles disprove that Sonic Team made games Sonic 2 or Sonic & Knuckles. They just establish that they worked with STI to make them, and that it became its own established studio in the mid nineties. The Sonic Team article you just linked to still has it that Sonic Team was founded in 1990, in reference to the fact the Sonic 1 devs officially used that name. So why are the Sonic 2 devs any different? They used the name too, and did for the other classic games they made as well.

Anyway, I'm also positive that there was no true consensus to remove those games. The editor who removed them admitted that he was being bold in the edit summary. So I believe a revert is in order until an actual consensus can be reached. Monobyte (talk) 02:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree; it's been eleven months since Joebro removed them. Almost a year. I would put it to you that's long enough that WP:SILENCE takes effect and you need to get consensus to add them back at this point, because a lack of a challenge in that long period of time suggests consensus not to revert. If you want to host a discussion, you're welcome to do so. Red Phoenix ^talk 02:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think WP:SILENCE can be applied to assume consensus here, considering that the multiple talk pages showed that there was no consensus. Monobyte (talk) 03:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

You're beating a dead horse. We've long since moved on from this. This was a discussion that took place across multiple pages and ultimately scholarship by our editors showed that Sonic Team demonstrably did not develop Sonic 2, CD, 3 & Knuckles, and Ristar. JOEBRO64 13:33, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Can I have a link? Because people haven't been able to provide solid evidence that Sonic Team didn't develop these games even after I asked. Or evidence that this was the consensus. And like I said, I looked at the talk pages of each of these games. Monobyte (talk) 14:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Still no proof I see.

Allow me to reiterate one more time. Everything points to your removal of these games being a bold edit (you even called it one in your edit summary) rather than a result of consensus. Even in your "vote" for STI in the Sonic 2 talk page, you admit that attributing these games to STI alone is controversial. Moreover, less than a week ago you admitted on Sonic Retro that while these games should be attributed to STI, it's not incorrect to attribute them to Sonic Team:

https://imgur.com/Z8uFqjX

So I'm giving it one more day before I revert your edit and restore these games (except for Ristar, per its talk page), as well as your removal of Sonic Team's credit from their respective pages (though I'll still keep STI). Don't say I didn't warn you. Monobyte (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Not particularly sure this approach of "threatening to revert" makes sense. There's multiple people here who actively disagree with you. Whether you revert right now or not, it's pretty obvious that further discussion will be necessary. Sergecross73 msg me 20:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. I repeatedly asked for proof that a) Sega's calling the team that made these games is inaccurate and b) TheJoebro64's edit was a result of consensus. People failed to produce proof in both cases, and failed to address my most recent points. I had already made my intention and argument for reverting it known, so I was going to go ahead with it, but I figured it would be nice to make it extra clear and give them more time to rebut it.

You don't need consent from the person who made a bold edit to revert it to begin with. Monobyte (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I understand that. You're missing my point. I'm just saying it's not much of a threat when there's multiple editors actively opposing you. They're obviously going to revert back and/or engage in further discussions. You may as well just keep discussing regardless. Sergecross73 msg me 21:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure why you're stalking my activity on Sonic Retro (and I was clearly describing in a retroactive, informal sense, not a formal sense—which is what Wikipedia is), but the Sega Technical Institute, Sonic 2, and Sonic 3 articles provide copious sourcing demonstrating that yes, STI did develop the games, and yes, their credit is official. This is getting to the point of WP:IDHT. JOEBRO64 21:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Nobody is debating whether or not STI developed these games. Please don't try to move the goalpost.

Nobody is stalking you either, I happen to be a Sonic Retro regular too. Monobyte (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Monobyte, this behavior isn't cool. The consensus is clearly against you and making threats of reverts makes you sound more like a kidnapper with delusions of grandeur than someone here to collaborate. Posting screenshots of what editors are doing on other sites is extra creepy and inappropriate. Whatever the content of your argument, this sort of thing makes it way less likely for people to take you seriously. Popcornfud (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

First, I've been repeatedly asking proof that the consensus is against these games being attributed to Sonic Team and people have been unable to produce it every single time. Just saying "this is the consensus" is meaningless if you can't back it up.

Second, I've been following that Sonic Retro thread for reasons unrelated to TheJoeBro64 or this discussion. You can find comments of mine in the Sonic X-treme talk page regarding Naka's involvement, which that thread pertains to. Monobyte (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Just saying "this is the consensus" is meaningless if you can't back it up. No, that's how Wikipedia works. If you can't get consensus, you can't make the changes you want. Focus on making strong arguments, not threats. Popcornfud (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Are you even reading my comments? The points is that people have been unable to prove that this is the consensus.

And telling people that I'll revert a bold edit unless they're against it and can give me reason not to far from a "threat". Monobyte (talk) 21:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Are you even reading this thread? You clearly don’t have consensus for the action you want to take and you’re trying to WP:WIKILAWYER to get your way. Red Phoenix ^talk 22:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

The original edit by TheJoeBro64 didn't have a consensus either.

And I don't really see how I'm WP:Wikilawyering any more than you or TheJoeBro64 here. Monobyte (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Joebro's edit wasn't against a consensus, either. He was bold, and eleven months passed without a challenge. That's part of how the process works; we encourage editors to be bold. We don't encourage editors to argue the process more than the content point; that is Wikilawyering. A heated debate on content is not Wikilawyering. Relentlessly arguing the process is. Red Phoenix ^talk 23:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Um, I wasn't "relentlessly arguing the process". I only brought up that it was a bold edit because people incorrectly claimed it was a result of consensus. Monobyte (talk) 23:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Other editors are not required to satisfy your personal requirements for proof. Again, focus less on this, which is a very obvious dead end, and more about a new persuasive argument that could bring about a more clear consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 22:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I mean, I'm not required to ask for their opinion before reverting a bold edit either. Especially one that went against consensus. I was being nice.

But if they try to justify their stance arguing "it's like this", then I expect them to be able to back up their argument rather than going "take my word for it".

That said, I did back up my stance, and the only counterarguments I got were fallacies like "STI worked on these games, therefore they can't possibly be attributed to Sonic Team". Monobyte (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't how to make it any more clear than this - there's two possible scenarios:

1. You're wrong. There was a consensus.
2. You're right. There was no consensus.

In scenario 1, you need to start a new discussion in order to attempt to get a new consensus for your argument.

In scenario 2, you make your edit. And immediately at least 3 separate editors oppose it and hold a discussion that, at least immediately, shows a small local consensus against what you're trying to do. Which leads to you being reverted and having accomplished nothing.

Scenario 2 is exactly the same as scenario 1, except with more steps. Stop wasting everyone's time (yours included) and just assume scenario 1.

Also, let me remind you that this is coming from someone who isn't even necessarily against you in this dispute (except Ristar, I feel that's as it should be.) Sergecross73 msg me 23:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Why are you telling me this? I didn't just jump to reverting the edit, I debated it on here. I only talked about reverting it when it became clear that this wasn't the consensus, it was a bold edit, and people repeatedly failed to disprove that ST worked on these games. I didn't get around to doing it until there was a 29-hour silence after my last comment without rebuttals, and even then, before taking action I reaffirmed my intention and told them to speak up if they had any rebuttals to post. I just didn't remotely expect them to take it as a "threat". Monobyte (talk) 23:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Come on, man. You literally said "Don't say I didn't warn you". You must know that sounds like a threat. Or maybe you don't. I'm trying to help you out, since you're very clearly failing to get anywhere with your current approach. But you can't seem to figure that out either. I'll leave you be now. Best of luck out there. Sergecross73 msg me 03:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh, by that I just meant "Don't treat my revert as unjustified and start edit-warring, as I specifically gave you the chance to rebut it before I made it".

I didn't mean my reply to you in an inflammatory way, btw. I just meant that you're telling me to debate it with people on this page, which is what I've been trying to do since the beginning. Monobyte (talk) 03:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

That said, I did back up my stance, and the only counterarguments I got were fallacies like "STI worked on these games, therefore they can't possibly be attributed to Sonic Team". That is a gross misrepresentation of the argument. Here, I'll make an argument in points:

• "STI worked on these games, therefore they can't possibly be attributed to Sonic Team". That's not true, but Yuji Naka was an employee of STI - he actually quit Sega and Mark Cerny went to Shinobu Toyoda to negotiate a new deal to bring him to the US at double his salary (see Sega Technical Institute).
• As a studio, there was no such thing as Sonic Team before 1994 when Naka was offered a promotion to producer and invited back to Japan and given his own studio, CS3. (see Sonic Team). From then on, Sonic Team wasn't a team name, it was an actual game development studio.
  • If there is a bit of a fallacy here, it's calling Sonic Team the developer of the original Sonic the Hedgehog; the true developer was Sega, specifically the consumer development department (also sometimes called Sega CD, as there was only one department at the time. It was not AM8, that term wasn't used for Sonic Team until 1998). But, since reliable sources popularly call it Sonic Team because the developers signed it "Sonic Team Presents", we kinda have to go with it.
• There are not reliable sources in any significant quantity that say "Sonic Team" developed Sonic 2. The above article that is being argued comes from Sega is to a Google Play Store entry, was then and is now. We have far better sources that cover the development of the game that don't say it was developed by Sonic Team (see Sonic the Hedgehog 2)
  • The Eurogamer source says there were "two Sonic Teams". There wasn't at the time, so connecting that to the official Sonic Team is fallacious reading.
  • Don't ask to have a source produced that outright states Sonic Team did not develop these; that's asking to disprove a negative.
• The crux of the argument here is, "What is Sonic Team?" And that's simple: Sonic Team was a colloquial name for the group of Naka, Yasuhara, and Ohshima they used in 1991, and then a development studio and full-on corporation at various times from 1994-95 on. "Sonic Team" did not exist in 1992, 93, and most of 94; the trio were split up working on separate projects an ocean apart, and the official studio had not yet been established.

Red Phoenix ^talk 00:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

That's a bit better.

There are not reliable sources in any significant quantity that say "Sonic Team" developed Sonic 2. The above article that is being argued comes from Sega is to a Google Play Store entry, was then and is now. We have far better sources that cover the development of the game that don't say it was developed by Sonic Team

So Sega isn't a reliable source now? They've attributed these games to Sonic Team in recent times and even back in the day, per the Japanese packaging.

If there is a bit of a fallacy here, it's calling Sonic Team the developer of the original Sonic the Hedgehog; the true developer was Sega, specifically the consumer development department (also sometimes called Sega CD, as there was only one department at the time. It was not AM8, that term wasn't used for Sonic Team until 1998). But, since reliable sources popularly call it Sonic Team because the developers signed it "Sonic Team Presents", we kinda have to go with it.

I think you can't have it both ways. If we accept that Sonic 1 using the "Sonic Team Presents" branding makes it a Sonic Team game, we have to do the same for the other classic games, which used it too (see above).

The crux of the argument here is, "What is Sonic Team?" And that's simple: Sonic Team was a colloquial name for the group of Naka, Yasuhara, and Ohshima they used in 1991, and then a development studio and full-on corporation at various times from 1994-95 on. "Sonic Team" did not exist in 1992, 93, and most of 94; the trio were split up working on separate projects an ocean apart, and the official studio had not yet been established.

You're ignoring the fact that Sega sees the team that worked on the other classic games as "Sonic Team" too. Clearly your definition doesn't match the official one. Monobyte (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

All right, I just did some research and I can link to multiple reliable sources per WP:VG/S that list Sonic Team as the developer of these games:

https://www.polygon.com/game/sonic-the-hedgehog-2/15500

https://www.sega-16.com/2004/07/sonic-the-hedgehog-2/

https://www.nintendolife.com/games/megadrive/sonic_the_hedgehog_2

https://www.ign.com/games/sonic-the-hedgehog-2

Moreover, various STI members like Peter Morawiec, Tim Skelly, Chris Senn, Tom Payne, Craig Stitt and Howard Drossin have specifically referred to the Japanese side of these games' dev teams as "Sonic Team":

https://www.sega-16.com/2007/04/interview-peter-morawiec/

https://www.sega-16.com/2007/04/interview-chris-senn/

https://info.sonicretro.org/Tim_Skelly_interview_by_ICEknight_(August_2004)

https://info.sonicretro.org/Tom_Payne_interview_by_SageXPO_(July_30,_2009)

https://info.sonicretro.org/Craig_Stitt_interview_by_ICEknight_(January_2001)

https://info.sonicretro.org/Howard_Drossin_interview_by_SageXPO_(August_2008)

I believe that should be enough sources to justify these games' inclusion. Monobyte (talk) 02:09, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

• Retro Gamer issue 36, page 29, writer Ashley Day: "The truth is that of all of the Mega Drive's Sonic platformers, only the first was developed by the true Sonic Team. The rest were put together by the unique and fascinating Sega Technical Institute".
• No, Sega "saying it" doesn't make it reliable because Sega doesn't reliably state any of their developers of this era from their first party studios. Is Team Shinobi or Sega AM1 credited for Shinobi (1987 video game) anywhere on it? Most of the time, games from their departments were just labeled as "Sega". There isn't consistency on this from Sega, to the point that in this era I don't think there is an "official" definition. Furthermore, Wikipedia is based on secondary sources, although the inclusion of WP:PRIMARY ones are acceptable in some circumstances.
• Of your reliable sources, Sega-16 has to be discarded because only content by Ken Horowitz is considered reliable from them. The rest are simple database entries, and in many cases those are supplied by wikis or otherwise user-contributed (GameSpot, for instance, takes all of theirs from the entirely user-contributed GameFAQs.) Usually the database pieces on these kinds of sites don't have the rigor of fact-checking their articles do.
• That some of the "American" STI team members would call the Japanese "Sonic Team" doesn't surprise me. It seems more to me like a colloquialism for the group in part because of the division into two separate teams that occurred after Sonic 2. That still does not make them an official designation or an official developer.
• "Sonic Team Presents" isn't on the box art for any version other than the Japanese version and it's not in any of the games at all. "Presents" also doesn't mean that's who developed it. Red Phoenix ^talk 03:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a link to that Retro Gamer article? Because I would like to know if that's just Ashley Day's view or if there was more basis to it.

No, Sega "saying it" doesn't make it reliable because Sega doesn't reliably state any of their developers of this era from their first party studios. Is Team Shinobi or Sega AM1 credited for Shinobi (1987 video game) anywhere on it? Most of the time, games from their departments were just labeled as "Sega".

Sega has attributed these games to Sonic Team even in later years.

That some of the "American" STI team members would call the Japanese "Sonic Team" doesn't surprise me. It seems more to me like a colloquialism for the group in part because of the division into two separate teams that occurred after Sonic 2. That still does not make them an official designation or an official developer.

You would have a point if it was just a casual name used behind the scenes only. Sega using the name for the devs in official material disproves that.

It's also not just "some" members, but nearly everyone who was interviewed.

Of your reliable sources, Sega-16 has to be discarded because only content by Ken Horowitz is considered reliable from them.

The page I linked to is content by Ken Horowitz.

The rest are simple database entries, and in many cases those are supplied by wikis or otherwise user-contributed (GameSpot, for instance, takes all of theirs from the entirely user-contributed GameFAQs.) Usually the database pieces on these kinds of sites don't have the rigor of fact-checking their articles do.

None of these link are wikis or have user-contributed content besides user scores and reviews, comments, etc. Most don't even have these.

"Sonic Team Presents" isn't on the box art for any version other than the Japanese version and it's not in any of the games at all.

Your point being? The Japanese packages are still official material.

"Presents" also doesn't mean that's who developed it.

What else would it be referring to if not the people who made the game? It's not like Sonic Team is a publisher like Sega. Besides, we're accepting the "Sonic Team Presents" from Sonic 1. Monobyte (talk) 03:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I just took a look at that article and the writer doesn't really justify that statement. They just make the claim, and proceeds to give a summary of the development of the STI games. I don't see much that puts it above the sources attributing these games to Sonic Team. Day's view is at odds with the comments by the STI members in the interviews I posted above, which I would think hold greater credibility here. Monobyte (talk) 09:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

• Sega has attributed these games to Sonic Team even in later years. - Again, I've rejected this argument a couple of times. Please don't WP:BLUDGEON it: I have heard your point and still don't accept it for reasons I've already given.
• The page I linked to is content by Ken Horowitz. Not the review, if you look closer. That was done by someone named Dyson Turner, and based on the date I'd say it's from the days before Horowitz had control of the site and it was ran by the guys from Eidolon's Inn, who later self-published a factually inaccurate Sega book. This is part of why Sega-16 content has to be selective on what is accepted and what isn't. Developer interviews would be fine whether or not it was Horowitz.
• None of these link are wikis or have user-contributed content besides user scores and reviews, comments, etc. Most don't even have these. - So where did they get their info from in masse? Again, they don't review these with the same rigor they do their articles for accuracy. They're not in the business of maintaining a database; they're in the business of writing catchy articles that will get readership.
• Your point being? The Japanese packages are still official material. - My point being that it could just as easily be something they put on the box for a Japanese audience to know it was done by the same developers as a marketing strategy (which isn't wrong; Naka and Yasuhara and some of the same team did work on the game). But then if they're a group to be credited, why not put it on the packaging worldwide? Or in the game?
• It's also not just "some" members, but nearly everyone who was interviewed. - Those are all developer interviews, who, when working with them, certainly had reason to call them Sonic Team in a colloquial manner because they came over from Japan and there was said separation on the workfloor. Let's look at the heads of STI, shall we?
  • https://www.sega-16.com/2006/12/interview-mark-cerny/ - "In September 1991, four months after Sonic The Hedgehog‘s release in North America, I’d managed to reunite two of the three key Sonic Team members (Yuji Naka, the Sonic programmer and team leader, and Hirokazu Yasuhara, the designer) at my Sega Technical Institute." - Mark Cerny. Two of three doesn't mean the team is there.
  • https://www.sega-16.com/2005/02/interview-roger-hector/ - "The Sega Technical Institute (STI) was regarded as a special group where the top Japanese game talent in the company could come to the USA and work with top American game talent to produce special original games. It was a kind of elite group overall and was given a lot of autonomy. We did the major Sonic games, but we also took on special coin op projects like: Die Hard Arcade, and we were the only group within Sega allowed to do crossover things like this." - Roger Hector. Notice, no mention of Sonic Team. We did the major Sonic games.
• Besides, we're accepting the "Sonic Team Presents" from Sonic 1. - We have to accept the Sonic 1 one because of WP:DUE - it would be undue weight to say they didn't because although it was technically Sega CD, almost all sources call them Sonic Team for the purpose of this game. The same depth of sources is not present for the later games, so the same argument does not apply.
• Okay, I just took a look at that article and the writer doesn't really justify that statement. They just make the claim, and proceeds to give a summary of the development of the STI games. I don't see much that puts it above the sources attributing these games to Sonic Team. - Again, you're asking for disproof of a negative. You're not going to find people actively arguing in the media the same point we're disputing here.
• Edge issue 89, page 76, Yuji Naka: "When we released Sonic in 1991, Sonic Team appeared as a team name. It was with NiGHTS that the name became a true brand. When we had to come up with a name for our company, it was an obvious idea to keep the same brand." - No mention of the later games, just Sonic the Hedgehog?

That took 30 minutes of my life I won't get back. With all due respect, I'll keep doing this as long as I have to, but I suggest we drop the sticks and walk away to allow other editors to review the arguments and chime in. We are doing no more good by continuing to disagree between ourselves. Red Phoenix ^talk 11:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Monobyte, you keep claiming that "Sega calls the dev team that made the classic games Sonic Team, so I decided to check an official Sega source. And guess what? Sonic Team's official website doesn't credit the Genesis games to Sonic Team. The earliest game it credits to Sonic Team is Nights into Dreams. Which, of course, lines up perfectly with the scholarship Red Phoenix has provided above, and he, myself, and others have integrated into Wikipedia articles. JOEBRO64 12:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

That site obviously lists the games developed by Sonic Team since it became established as a studio. The current article refers to Sonic Team's history both as a studio and as a dev team, otherwise we wouldn't count Sonic 1. You can't have it both ways and make selective exclusions. Monobyte (talk) 12:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, we're firmly in WP:IDHT territory now. JOEBRO64 12:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

How is my response WP:IDHT? Am I wrong in saying that we're covering the team's pre-Sega CS2 history by including Sonic 1? Monobyte (talk) 12:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Since we're apparently playing the game of throwing accusations, didn't your WP:BOLD removal of the games violate WP:BRDD? It says "If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version". You had already made that same bold edit a while back and it got reverted. Then you waited a while and did it again hoping it would stick this time, despite knowing it was controversial and got reverted the first time, and there was still no consensus in favor of it. Monobyte (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Simple. The consensus changed through editing. Red Phoenix, myself, and others did a ton of research across various articles, including Sonic Team, Sega Technical Institute, and Sonic the Hedgehog 2, with sourcing that proved that yes, Sega Technical Institute developed those games, and no, Sonic Team did not because it did not exist at the time. With strong sourcing supporting these findings, they were incorporated across the articles with no opposition. Last year, I made an edit here that I classified as bold because the entries had been here for years and hadn't been removed yet. So I removed them. No one disputed it until you did (which, per WP:SILENCE, meant that consensus could be assumed since there was seemingly no disagreement), and it's very obvious based on the replies you've been getting that a lot has changed since the initial discussion in 2018.

And re: IDHT: Sometimes, editors perpetuate disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. That's exactly what you're doing - we've long since moved on from this. This was no longer an issue by 2019. JOEBRO64 13:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

That edit wasn't a result of consensus. First, I looked at all the relevant talk pages and there was no consensus in favor of removing Sonic 2, 3 or & Knuckles. Second, you wouldn't have needed to call it a bold edit in the edit summary if it had been a result of consensus.

Silence is the weakest form of consensus. It doesn't override an actual discussion when there is one. And the discussions show that no, there was no such consensus in favor of your edit.

As for your second paragraph. If the issue had been settled by 2019, then why did you remove these games less than a year ago? You're basically making an argument that the settlement was to leave them. Monobyte (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:BOLD edits don’t necessarily need consensus unless they’re explicitly against consensus. An edit can be bold just for being a drastic change. And no, no discussion sprang up from Joebro’s edit in 11 months, and there hadn’t been past discussion in 3 years. It was a good edit, and taking until 2021 to make the edit happens. We’re all volunteers and Wikipedia has no deadline. Red Phoenix ^talk 17:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Monobyte has now been blocked as a sockpuppet. Unless there are any other objections, I think we can safely bring this discussion to a close. Red Phoenix ^talk 17:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.