Talk:Nintendo/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Shiho Fujii listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Shiho Fujii. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Brayan Jaimes (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Nintendo for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Nintendo is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Nintendo until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit request 5-OCT-2019

As a practice I don't edit articles concerning this topic due to the similarity of my username. I ask that another editor make these changes.

Two references using the {{cite journal}} template are generating Missing Periodical CS1 errors because the |journal= parameters within them are not active. Since these two references are operation manuals, the templates should be changed to {{cite manual}}.

Ref tag #92

• Location: The last reference used in the Wii subsection of the Products/Home Consoles section
  
  

{{cite journal |url=https://www.nintendo.com/consumer/downloads/WiiMiniOpMn_RVO_en.pdf |title=Nintendo Wii Mini Operations Manual |publisher=Nintendo of America |page=10 |accessdate=16 December 2012}}

• Change to:
  
  

{{cite manual|url=https://www.nintendo.com/consumer/downloads/WiiMiniOpMn_RVO_en.pdf |title=Nintendo Wii Mini Operations Manual |publisher=Nintendo of America |page=10 |accessdate=16 December 2012}}

Ref tag #158

• Location: The last reference used in the NTSC regions subsection of the Policy section
  
  

{{cite journal |title=Nintendo 3DS XL Operations Manual |url=https://www.nintendo.com/consumer/downloads/SPR_EN_NA.pdf |publisher=Nintendo |accessdate=2 September 2012}}

• Change to:
  
  

{{cite manual |title=Nintendo 3DS XL Operations Manual |url=https://www.nintendo.com/consumer/downloads/SPR_EN_NA.pdf |publisher=Nintendo |accessdate=2 September 2012}}

Regards,  Spintendo  14:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Spintendo, all done. Regards, Lordtobi (✉) 14:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Notes

Bergsala

Can anyone with sufficient edit permissions mention that Scandinavia is not covered by Nintendo of Europe, but by the independent distributor Bergsala? That would be great. --2A02:908:1462:4B60:C0C7:9937:F20D:991C (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Added to the NoEurope section. --Masem (t) 15:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Change the words in a sentence

In the paragraph, Nintendo 64 and Game Boy Colour, there is a disturbing sentence that says "On 4 October,1997, famed Nintendo developer Gunpei Yokoi died in a car crash". For younger readers, I would like to change this to "On 4 October,1997, famed Nintendo developer Gunpei Yokoi passed away in a car crash". If you have any objections to my proposal then please say so here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8004:15A0:21E2:1D9B:FA2E:E34D:53BD (talk) 01:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

No, per our manual of style: Wikipedia:Passed away. As well as WP:NOTCENSORED. -- ferret (talk) 01:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Nintendo Light Telephone—mention it?

I just learned that Nintendo made an optical telephone (more like a two-way radio) device in 1971. It's described in the December 1971 issue of Popular Science, at the bottom of page 61. This was when Nintendo was just starting to get into electronic toys, before they started making video games. It could be good to mention this device along with the electronic toys already listed in the article, especially given how toy-like it looks and that the author says it would probably be marketed as a toy in the US (while implying it was originally intended to be a serious tool—not sure how true that is). What do you think? ← PointyOintment ❬t & c❭  23:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

ES Operating System was removed from article, breaking redirect

The redirect ES operating system redirects to a no longer existing section of this article which contained information about Nintendo "publishing ES, a now-dormant research operating system". This was removed in this edit by Cat's Tuxedo.

Please add that information back in, as that is a notable event. Ideally also link that it uses the Squeak programming language, which was previously the redirect target. Changing the redirect back to that would also be an option, but in that case, the ES operating system should still be mentioned on the Nintendo page.

2A02:908:E851:4020:816F:80DA:6C72:669F (talk) 04:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Replace PNG with SVG

Replace the Nintendo logo from 1889 to the vector version of it:

Anomper012 (talk) 05:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2020

Since 1889 Nintendo had been making playing cards called Hanafuda cards. But had stopped selling them a long time ago. 216.174.190.125 (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Nintendo in Brazil

Can someone please add more information about Brazil, such as the release of the Switch in September? That would be nice.

Sources:

https://www.instagram.com/p/CEt5myfDo6C/

https://www.theenemy.com.br/nintendo/nintendo-switch-brasil-preco (In Brazilian Portuguese) WeirdEssential (talk) 18:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Can someone fix the Products section? 77.221.89.89 (talk) 10:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

In what way..? -- ferret (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

On the section there is an error. 77.221.89.89 (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Which is? -- ferret (talk) 14:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

"Playing cards" 77.221.89.89 (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2020

I want the article Nintendo to be un semi-procted so we can all edit so pages = pages + accounts + registered users and I want to edit too. 70.24.31.108 (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

It's a common vandalism target so it's unlikely that it'll be unprotected. You can request specific changes here on this talk page on the form "Please change X to Y", citing reliable sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 23:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Or you could create an account and quickly be granted semi-protection edit permissions. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

On the subject of running the Love hotel

I had a question, and I stated it here, but I was wrong. Please remove this statement. I sincerely apologize.

岩田溥 (talk) 12:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Criticism heading in this page

I hope everyone is doing well. What does everything think about a Criticisms header in this page vs a dedicated page like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Electronic_Arts? I believe it should be in a different page since it can then go in the Criticisms of Companies category that most software companies have and so that companies have less incentive to edit their own main page. Would love you hear everyone's thoughts :) WeJustWantToPlay (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Outside of how Nintendo has handled its IP, I'm not aware of the level of criticism it has gotten to warrant something like that, compared to EA. We generally try to avoid outright criticism sections and incorporate that where we can, and in this case, into the IP section on this article. --Masem (t) 20:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but with how long Nintendo has been around, it's about time we establish something that aggregates this knowledge. There's no convenient up to date resource on the internet that aggregates lawsuits, cease and desists, recalls, etc. There's 131 years of history good and bad, and I think that criticisms for such a large company with huge influence deserves an equal chance to stand on the internet. It does sound like we are in agreement though regarding not having a criticism section on the main article; I also feel that would be unconducive of productive editing. The separate article doesn't even have to link back to the main page for at least a few years. Thoughts? WeJustWantToPlay (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

A dedicated page for "Criticism of Nintendo" absolutely would not fly. A criticism section is unlikely to be particular well fleshed out, and the details should be worked into the general history besides, per MOS. There is definitely not enough reliable secondary sourcing to create a full article. -- ferret (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

To contrast, the Criticism of Electronic Arts page involves several cases of detailed coverage getting into why EA has been criticized and their attempts to work it out (if they have). But it also doesn't document every lawsuit or C&D EA has put out. That's not our job there, nor here for Nintendo. It is fair that we have the IP section on this page pointing out their IP practices are considered harmful at times, but that's about the most intense thing we can say about the company (individual products like the Virtual Boy, that we can save for the specific pages). --Masem (t) 23:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Nintendo has attracted ire from fans, gamers, and journalists for a long time, not just the recent handling of controversy with Melee, Splatoon, and the Etika tribute Joycons. The rarity and price of older games despite Nintendo's zealous protection (going after ROM sites), the never-wavering $60 tag of newer games, the barely-there online support for games since the DS era, recent controversy with Pokemon (although I believe this is covered on the Sword and Shield pages), the dismissive attitude of the widespread Joycon drift problem, and more are all actively-discussed issues with Nintendo. These are all off the top of my head, but I'm sure there are more. These may all be small potatoes, but Nintendo's recent attitude towards fans of a game they no longer actively produce or publish has brought a lot of grievances to light, to the point of Nintendo cancelling the stream of their Splatoon tournament finals in retaliation. These controversies and events are significant, especially for a company as crucial to the gaming industry as Nintendo. 65.222.183.232 (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Several of these things require pulling from forums and other user-generated sites that we simply can't do (like the price tag of games). Further, some of these are less about the company and more on specific products - take the Joy-Con drift issue. That's well documented at the Switch + Joy-Con pages, but does it necessarily reflect on Nintendo as a business? Are they known for shoddy hardware in general? No, so it makes no sense to flesh that out here. (The Wii Remote had similar issues with legal trouble but again, that didn't reflect on the company itself). The stuff that came out over the weekend with the Splatoon event and the C&D on the Ekita Joy-Con, we don't have enough sense of time if this is a major problem yet; the Ekita Joy-Con stuff though was added to the Etika page since it is relevant there. Everything else that we can readily document as "criticism" comes down to Nintendo's heavy-handed practices on IP, which does reflect on the company and why we have a whole section for and coverage these factors. We're still not at a case like EA's page where we have several major controversial topics that necessitate a section or split. --Masem (t) 17:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, but people getting mad on the Internet that a corporation does not behave the way they want it to does not real criticism make. Most of the stuff in the EA criticism article falls into three categories: incidents that resulted in legal action, stories that became so big they were picked up by mainstream media outlets, or criticisms that were so widespread that EA felt a need to respond and change their business practices (or at least pay lip service to changing their business practices). Consumers getting mad because Nintendo defends its IP in ways they do not like is simply not in the same league. Indrian (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

The company is currently worth 7.61 trillion JPY, which is approximately 73.1 billion USD and being a 131 year old company means that they have a lot of resources to promote themselves and that they've been doing that for a long time. In that 131 years, Nintendo is bound to have made decisions that people are critical of; it's certainly very, very, very unlikely that they are criticism free. How does Nintendo's resources and time compare with the people who gather criticism of Nintendo? Whether you think it's a thousand, million, or billion times more than the criticsm crowd, the point is that criticism against Nintendo has been absent for a long time. There is not one place on the internet of a crowdsourced timeline of criticisms against Nintendo, and Wikipedia fits the bill quite well for the first edition of this, however rough it may be. Even if there had been 10 prior places on the internet that fit the description, I would still be in favor of a dedicated Criticism of Nintendo Wikipedia page. To address the user-created-content point, I think it would be warranted, they are not just "anyone" as the wikipedia guide says. They are people who have worked with Nintendo directly, but I'm sure there will be secondary sources that would write about the recent happenings eventually if we really want to play it by the book. All in all, I hope we can find more empathy for the little guys rather than the $73 billion company at the end of this discussion. WeJustWantToPlay (talk) 22:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't here to "right great wrongs" for the little people versus the $73 billion company. Sourcing requirements have been pointed out several times in this discussion, and you've come back with nothing. If you cannot find reliable secondary sourcing to start providing examples of established documented criticism, best to drop the stick. -- ferret (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I addressed the concern in my previous reply, where we can wait for more secondary reporting to come in before adding in the recent criticism. The recent criticism about Nintendo is new and shouldn't stop contributors from compiling and documenting the many things that have happened previously in a dedicated page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeJustWantToPlay (talk • contribs) 08:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

It has been reported already - and none of the RSes made a big deal out of it. Every large company had made consumer slights; WP's job is not to document each one of them, but when they have made ones that are enduring for a company, we will. EA has made several; Nintendo's only enduring one is its rigorous IP protection against emulation and mods. --Masem (t) 14:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Also against this. Most of this is very recent and it’s far too early tell if it’s something of lasting impact or just another instance of gamers raging about this or that. (I’m guessing the latter.) If some one feels the need to add a reliably sourced and neutrally worded sentence or two about this, sure go for it. But an entire article or section is overkill/WP:UNDUE. Sergecross73 msg me 19:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to post this for anybody who might see this as useful. This link belongs to a former member of the Project M development team, who made a chronology of Nintendo's "crimes" against various communities. Yeah, take that title as you will. Multiple subjects (except the recent hacker surveillance stuff) are discussed here. Again, take this as you will: https://press-z-or-r-twice.blogspot.com/2020/12/accounts-of-nintendos-crimes-against.html?m=1 Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, y'all!

@Popcornfud: and @Smuckola: Thanks for making those changes. The (now blocked) RyanSonic2002 user hit over 30 different pages with Grammarly (or something like it) and made a big ol' mess. I was going to come back and re-add anything worthwhile, but y'all beat me to it. Thanks so much! Happy holidays to you! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 01:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Merge subsections for cards and games

Under Products, the subsection 'Playing cards' is empty, and 'Toys' is a link to the 'Toys and cards' section of List of Nintendo products. I propose merging them. --82.40.14.9 (talk) 11:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2021

Get rid of and, and add and Pokemon Masters EX Mynamenotjeffok (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Not clear what edit you would like made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Neologism

Is "Nintendo" a neologism of the 1980s? Like in "playing Nintendo". − Gebu (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so as it has generally fallen out of common use. ---Taltos :) (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• App-augmented-reality-game-gps-163042 (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Playing Cards

The playing cards section has been empty since 2020 despite a notice in that section. This is rather sad given it is their original product so being able to talk about the continued history of their playing cards would be a nice addition. Sadly this article is semi-protected as present, so I'm putting in some sources here:

• https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2020/06/nintendo_releases_hanafuda_and_playing_cards_based_on_mario_zelda_splatoon_and_more_europe - "Nintendo Releases Hanafuda And Playing Cards Based On Mario, Zelda, Splatoon And More (Europe)"

• https://www.nintendo.co.jp/others/hanafuda_kabufuda/index.html - (Japanese) - The Nintendo Hanafuda/Kabufuda site showing their current line up and a section of "how to play".

• https://www.nintendo.co.jp/others/playing_cards/index.html - (Japanese) - The Nintendo western style playing cards site. As well as a range of different designs, custom orders seem to be possible.

• In addition, there are also similar sections for Mahjong, Shogi, and Go on the nintendo japan website.

If someone with the ability to edit this article is able to add in some of this information, I would be rather grateful. 176.251.175.52 (talk) 11:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Yen to usd

I noticed that under revenue and such is how much money it is in yen but I think their should also be the amount in USD. Jdietr601 (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Nintendo reports their financial info in yen, and because monetary conversions shift all the time, it would not be appropriate to make that change. --Masem (t) 19:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2021

Nintendo continues to sell both hanafuda and western style playing cards, and has released some limited edition ones

• https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2020/06/nintendo_releases_hanafuda_and_playing_cards_based_on_mario_zelda_splatoon_and_more_europe - "Nintendo Releases Hanafuda And Playing Cards Based On Mario, Zelda, Splatoon And More (Europe)"

• https://www.nintendo.co.jp/others/hanafuda_kabufuda/index.html - (Japanese) - The Nintendo Hanafuda/Kabufuda site showing their current line up and a section of "how to play".

• https://www.nintendo.co.jp/others/playing_cards/index.html - (Japanese) - The Nintendo western style playing cards site. As well as a range of different designs, custom orders seem to be possible.

• In addition, there are also similar sections for Mahjong, Shogi, and Go on the nintendo japan website. 176.251.175.52 (talk) 09:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2021

Under 5.2 of this article, "Vancouver" is ambiguous. It could refer Vancouver, WA or Vancouver B.C. Please clarify which Vancouver. 2601:1C2:5102:6140:598B:534C:3B5A:3BE (talk) 02:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

•  Done --Masem (t) 02:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

So, Koppai or Karuta?

Noticed that the company name got changed from Koppai to Karuta, and I don't see any discussion about that in archives. I don't necessarily object to change, but I'm trying to find the source for that, to figure out what's more correct. How do we verify this? --Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 08:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• Actually, found the reason for that myself: Karuta. However we have an issue where there's a lot of information about company named Nintendo Koppai, so we kind of need a comment in the article about that, to dispel a long-running mistake. But I'm not sure how to do that. --Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 21:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2021

I have seen that the PLAYING CARDS section in products. is empty, i would like to add to it, using sources and information

BBC Article I want to change the playing card section from Empty, to "Nintendo's origins began with the creation of playing cards. Fusajiro Yamauchi would create Hanafuda cards, beautfully decorated and hand-painted. These cards became hugely popular in Japan, they continued to create these cards until the late 1960's" Or something along those lines, and maybe include a photo of the original cards.Citation

-Cheers --68.71.12.19 (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

68.71.12.19 (talk) 16:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment I find it interesting that this isn't used in the article at all considering it talks about the entire history of Nintendo. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 16:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment I thought so too, the article is great, and I will redo my request. --68.71.12.19 (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

IP, please do not edit previous posts even if it's your own, because it makes it hard for other editors to figure out the order the replies come in. Instead, always add new text to the bottom of the section.

I've removed the section, as hand-crafted items aren't really the same thing as a commercial mass-produced product. The "History" section starts off by mentioning the hanafuda cards. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 08:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2022

24.191.51.115 (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

It started in 1898 with playing cards

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

"Connection Tour 07" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Connection Tour 07 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 22#Connection Tour 07 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. QuickQuokka ^[talk] 16:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2022

Just a simple typo fix:

Old- "after Japan banned most forms if gambling in 1882"

New - "after Japan banned most forms of gambling in 1882"

Changes "if" to "of" Mjhea0 (talk) 01:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 01:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia Public Investment Fund mention

I don’t know if anyone is updating but there is lots of reports that Saudi owns 5% of the company and they are official sources that say that and it is still not mentioned. Here is the article. https://www.ign.com/articles/nintendo-5-percent-owned-by-saudi-arabia NakhlaMan (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2022

The line

"Nintendo had taken issue with the tournament using emulated versions of Super Smash Bros. Melee which had included a user mod for networked play, as this would have required ripping a copy of Melee to play, an action they cannot condone."

should be changed to

"Nintendo had taken issue with the tournament using emulated versions of Super Smash Bros. Melee which had included a user mod for networked play, as this would have required ripping a copy of Melee to play, an action they do not condone." 2604:2D80:9E80:1200:65FD:6F97:3CA8:94A5 (talk) 07:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 10:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

With the Bayonetta voice actor's $4000 usd paycheck, can we finally link to a criticisms of Nintendo page just like we have for Microsoft, Sony, and other gaming companies?

I've worked on a first draft of this around two years ago, but it seems like we need a page to document the criticisms of Nintendo over time just like the other big tech companies:

Criticism of Facebook Criticism of Apple Criticism of Google Criticism of Yahoo! WeJustWantToPlay (talk) 17:50, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The issue with B3 has nothing to do with Nintendo. That's strictly a Platinum Games issue. And we absolutely avoid criticism pages unless it overwhelms the company page (which hasn't happened here yet). --Masem (t) 17:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2022

In the Subsection of Nintendo's Various Marketing campaigns featuring the slogans used across the years in commercials, the sentence detailing Nintendo Switch Commercials did not mention the "Nintendo Switch My Way" advert series. Please change the Sentence from "The Nintendo Switch uses the slogan "Switch and Play" in North America, and "Play anywhere, anytime, with anyone" elsewhere." to something more similar to "The Nintendo Switch uses the slogan "Switch and Play" in North America, however more recently, commercials with the slogan "Nintendo Switch My Way" and "Nintendo Switch Is My Way To Play" have been used often. The Slogan "Play anywhere, anytime, with anyone" is commonly used in other regions.[205] RazorMaize (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

•  Not done We need a source for that. --Masem (t) 19:04, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Lists of Nintendo games

The link to "Lists of Nintendo games" redirects to the "Lists of games on Nintendo consoles" page which includes games not made by Nintendo, considering the topic of this page and the section in which this link is found, most people would probably be more interested in the page about games published or made by Nintendo, "List of Nintendo products", and if that is accepted that section could be fused with the "Toys and Cards" section considering that it simply links to the list of products of Nintendo 2-Voyager (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2022

Update "Production output", "Revenue", "Operating income", "Net income", "Total assets", and "Total equity" in the infobox using the source provided:

https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2022/220510e.pdf 174.240.240.23 (talk) 01:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Source too long, @174.240.240.23 could you give us the number being changed to? Lemonaka (talk) 02:51, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RealAspects (talk) 03:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

SNES=one of the most successful consoles?

Is there a specific reason why the SNES is mentioned in the lead section as one "of the most successful consoles in the video game industry"? It sold rather mediocre measured by both hard- and software figures and is far from being one of the most successful consoles.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

They say that the SNES is one of the most successful consoles in history because it actually helped video games to recover after the video game crisis of 1983, and because it was very popular and even to this day, videogamers call it one of the best video game console in history, not just Nintendo Atarinintendo (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2023

Word change could be useful:

Mario has gone from being just a corporate mascot

to...

Mario has went from being just a corporate mascot 130.217.3.254 (talk) 03:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: It would be Mario went from being.... With has in the sentence, the grammar is correct. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose merging History of Nintendo into Nintendo. I think the content in History of Nintendo can easily be explained in the context of Nintendo, and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Nintendo.~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 14:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Let me propose another suggestion, which does include part of this merge, but instead turn "History of Nintendo" into "Nintendo video game consoles". The idea here is that whereas we have an article for the PlayStation family and the Xbox family of consoles, there's no equivalent for any Nintendo console since they are not a family. However, if we kept these all grouped on this page, then the main Nintendo page can focus mostly on the corporate aspects (touching on consoles when necessary). Masem (t) 16:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Masem: While I agree in principle (it's true that we have essentially have 3 articles - Nintendo, History of Nintendo, and Nintendo video game consoles - covering the same ground), I believe that the main Nintendo article should still cover the company's historical events (which includes console and major game releases, among other). So what I propose is that Nintendo would cover the company with a focus on the historical events (release dates of consoles and major games, and other corporate events) in a more brief fashion, while Nintendo video game consoles would have a more product-oriented focus (like PlayStation and Xbox) on each console in a more detailed fashion. ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 17:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I am not saying that the history section of Nintendo should eliminate all mention of consoles and games, but both the current section and the History of Nintendo articles go into far too much detail on technical aspects of the consoles, which, in comparison to the PlayStation (or even Sony Interactive Entertainment) and Xbox (or Microsoft) pages, is just too much. Noting that Nintendo went blue ocean with the Wii and made one of the best selling consoles is a key point there, but knowing that the Wii included accerometers and gyroscopes isn't really necessary to spell out when talking a corporate or financial aspect. Masem (t) 17:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I will add that I agree some merger needs to be done, as History of Nintendo feels duplicative. Masem (t) 18:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the problem is that both articles need significant improvement. I oppose the merge, but I think the articles need more work done on both of them (partly the reasons Masem and Arkhandar mentioned above) to justify my thinking. DecafPotato (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I think a big reason also is that the Nintendo article goes into too much depth about the history. Content should be moved to History of Nintendo, and the main article should be kept to WP:SUMSTYLE. DecafPotato (talk) 02:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose merger of History of Nintendo into the main Nintendo article. The article is developed well enough to stand on its own, and merging everything would be too big. Consider more so on trimming down on the main Nintendo article's history section. Nintendo video game consoles itself can be a split of the History of Nintendo article which offers a deeper insight to Nintendo's role in the console wars, though I would not actively oppose that merger as well. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Strong Oppose: History of Nintendo already has enough information to have its own article, with more to come. 9March2019 (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Fan controversy

Can we add more to the page relating to controversy such as etika and them shutting down the Splatoon 2 North American finals Livestream due to the free melee movement 2601:801:200:15A0:5D5A:C8CD:32D8:43DC (talk) 10:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Fan controversies that do not get significant coverage are not included. Masem (t) 12:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Can we add the stuff relating to pointcrow into the article or is it still too early to talk about it 2601:801:200:15A0:206A:7A07:A517:CA3B (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2023

Update business figures (specifically Operating Income, Revenue, Net Income and Production Output (Hardware and Software) for the fiscal year 2023, according to the Financial Results Explanatory Material published on May 9, 2023. Link: https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2023/230509_3e.pdf

Change Production Output (Hardware) to 17.97 million (downtrend) Change Production Ouput (Software) to 213.96 million (downtrend) Change Revenue to 1.601 trillion yen (downtrend) Change Operating Income to 504.3 billion yen (downtrend) Change net income to 432.7 billion yen (downtrend) FabricPanda (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

 Already done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Dolphin takedown

The page was edited today noting the takedown of the Steam page for Dolphin, however while the source given claims to have received legal documents there seems to be some question as to what actually happened according to a former developer: https://mastodon.delroth.net/@delroth/110440301402516214 BFeely (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

In addition, is it currently to the threshold of WP:N? BFeely (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Wii U vs Virtual Boy

"With 13.5 million units sold worldwide, the Wii U is the least successful video game console in Nintendo's history."

But I thought the Virtual Boy was only in the 700,000s, making it the least successful game console in Nintendo's history? StrawWord298944 (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The distinction is probably suppose to be "home" consoles. -- ferret (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Cruis'n franchise

Cruis'n was removed from their franchise list months ago (here), but they do own the trademarks on the franchise (an older one and a newer one, as well as of the newest game). Isn't it a Nintendo franchise? Poppstar (talk) 04:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

"N1nt3nd0" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect N1nt3nd0 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 11 § N1nt3nd0 until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Date format

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.

---

A question was raised at WT:MOSDATE about whether this article should be using DMY or MDY dates. The short version of the history is that it began with MDY, was later changed to DMY and has stayed that way for about 7 years, but not on the basis of a consensus discussion that affirmatively agreed to use DMY. I don't feel a need to provide diffs and ping names, because who did what for what reason years ago is irrelevant to the question what date format should be used at this article, about a company with strong ties to a non-English-speaking nation the native language of which uses YMD format (which is not one that WP uses). I'm not sure I'm even going to express an opinion in this; it's just clear that the discussion needs to happen and to come to a clear answer.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I have no opinion on which format should be preferred, but MOS:DATETIES does not apply here. It states Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the date format most commonly used in that nation (I added the bolding); Japan is not an English-speaking country. Link20XX (talk) 05:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Marchjuly brings up a good point below. I think I would support changing it to mdy dates based on their rationale. Link20XX (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I saw a post about this at WT:JAPAN. While it's true that Japan does use a YMD format for the Japanese language, pretty much both the MDY and DMY formats are widely used throughout the country for English. Both formats are (were?) taught at school depending upon how old you are and what text book the school used. The major English newspapers in Japan like The Japan Times, Daily Yomiuri, Mainichi Shimbum and Asahi Shimbun currently all use the MDY format, but I'm pretty sure that at one time a few of them were using DMY. All you need to do is walk around Tokyo for a while and you'll realize that there's no one format being used consistently. Even official government wesbites can be incosistent; for example, The Japanese Prime Minister's official website uses MDY, but the official Japanese Government website uses an all numerical DMY format, which means today would be written as 18/11/2023. The point I'm trying to make guess is that there's no real one consistent date format when it comes to English, and a lot depends on who's preparing the English materials, what style of English they studied as a student or even perhaps what translation software they might be using (if that's the case). If you look long enough, you'll eventually come across things like signs, posters, displays using ordinals for dates (even things like 1th, 2th, 3th, 21th, 22th and 23th) or commas between the month and year (like November, 2023). Anyway, Nintendo, FWIW, seems to be using the MDY format on its website. Maybe the thing to do is to follow MOS:DATEVAR and use the format chosen by creator of the article or first significant contributors until a consensus has been established to switch to a different format. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Unless there's a consistency issue not addressed at the moment, I guess my position is "Why change?" That it was changed many years ago inappropriately is a bit meh, but it's been silent consensus for 7 years now. It's tagged as DMY and that has been maintained for some time. I don't really care if it goes to MDY, which I prefer myself, I just don't really see a need to worry too much about it. -- ferret (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Similar to ferret, I don't see a need to change it now. That change seven years ago was maybe a bit BOLD, but apparently it was never challenged, and seven years are certainly enough to establish a new consensus. So let's stick to what we have now and stop worrying. It hardly seems a big deal one way or the other, after all. Gawaon (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I sat on this for a while, but ultimately conclude that 7 years is more than long enough to have established DMY as the consensus standard at the article. Whether is should have been changed 7 years ago without more discussion is basically irrelevant at this point (especially given the watchlisting level and frequency of editing at this page, a rather major article), and trying to change it back to MDY against years of DMY stability and consistency on the basis of someone not properly following some rule (in a guideline not a policy) years ago, but no reader-facing rationale of any kind, is WP:WIKILAWYERing (specifically both of the first two bullet items listed there; the purpose of the guideline is to stop date-warring not to enable more of it), and runs counter to both WP:EDITCON and WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY policies. Usage in English materials in Japan is mixed, usage in sources about this subject is mixed, and there is no "national tie" argument to make, so both DMY and MDY are entirely arbitrary with regard to this topic, and there is no reason to move away from what is now a long-established DMY style. The preference in Nintendo's own corporate paperwork is irrelevant; WP doesn't follow the Nintento Style Guide. Meanwhile, this is a global not US-centric topic, and DMY is more expected by/familiar to a broader class of our readers than US MDY format (but that's a weak argument, since both formats are perfectly intelligible to all our readers). In summary, there is nearly zero reader-facing or legitimate editor-facing reason to change the date style in this article again, and to the extent any weak one can be imagined, it leans toward DMY anyway. Normally, I just really wouldn't care, but arguments brought up about this case at WT:MOSDATE along the lines of "this was illegally changed 7 years ago so it must be changed back" are bogus and I can't ignore them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Those are all reasonable points to make, but I think you could've made them just as easily without throwing in mentions of Wikilawyering and bureacracy. Using those terms, at least at this point in the discussion when only a handful of comments were made and nobody had posted more than once, seems to paint those who might disagree with your position (including those yet to post) in a unafavorable light. The arguments that nobody has complained about this for seven years is certainly relevant to make and important because of EDITCON; at the same time though there is WP:CONTENTAGE which seems to imply that how long something has been in place doesn't really matter. FWIW, I don't think there's any significant improvement to be gained regardless of which format is used in a case like this, but whichever format is used should be used consistently. If the "new" consensus achieved here turns out to be DMY, then that's fine. If the "current" consensus is already DMY and this discussion just reaffirms it, then that's fine too. However, I also don't think someone trying to discuss a change is necessarily acting in bad faith or WLing if they bring up the fact that a change that was perhaps too bold was made so many years without proper discussion. I only think it starts venturing into WL territory when they keep posting the same argument over and over again, which doesn't seem to be the case at least here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Marchjuly: "mentions of Wikilawyering and burea[u]cracy" are entirely appropriate when something looks like wikilawyering and bureaucratizing. If it were some kind of civility violation to mention these pages, we would not have them. No one enjoys having their rationales questioned, but it's a fact of wiki-editing life. And WP:CONTENTAGE is not relevant to this thread; it is about making the fallacious argument that because something broken (incorrect information, a challenged claim with no citation, etc.) has not been fixed for a long time that it should not be fixed (or conversely that if a correction is recent that it should be reverted), yet nothing is broken about either of these date formats. (And even if you still believed there was a conflict between these pages, WP:EDITCON is policy and CONTENTAGE is an essay, so EDITCON wins. And guess what trying to pit CONTENTAGE against EDITCON is? Yep, wikilawyering. Any time you are trying to bend WP's rules and values and process to manufacture a conflict within the system itself, you are making a mistake, doubly so if you are doing it to try to get something you want.) "I also don't think someone trying to discuss a change is necessarily acting in bad faith": No one suggested that. The vast majority of lawyering and bureaucracy-mongering (on-site and in real life) is undertaken with a sense of subjective righteousness about what is good or correct or necessary; i.e., it's done in good faith. "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." Lots of things done in good faith are not constructive or productive. "I only think it starts venturing into WL territory when they keep posting the same argument over and over again": That's not what WP:Wikilawyering means, at all. That's WP:Forum shopping, WP:IDHT, and/or WP:DEADHORSE, depending on its exact flavor. Wikilawyering is not dependent on or defined by repetitiveness. Even WAccount1234567890, below, produced a good summary of what wikilawyering means (and then continued to engage in it).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

It appears that you are now explicitly advocating an edit that explicitly violates MOS:DATERET. I am not doing all the negative things you said. And the WP:EDITCON cannot guarantee that the consensus here has been explicitly achieved, so if anyone is doing all the negative things you said, it is you, not me. The main reason I support for change, as Marchjuly said, Japan uses mdy inconsistently, but uses mdy a lot like Canada in English document. Based on your claim, the mdy tag appears to be inappropriate everywhere except the United States and some other countries. If you think so, discuss it and make the rule. Also, this is because it violates all three examples of the MOS:DATERET. The article was a good article nominne in 2006, with mdy date format. Therefore, it appears that the article has evolved using predominantly mdy date format. Everybody might think that 7 years is too late, but considering the article has evolved using predominantly mdy date format for 11 years (early January 2005 – late September 2016), I don't think it's not too late.

As mentioned by you, a user changed its use of mdy dates without consensus on the article's talk page in late September 2016. However, in late October 2018, a user changed the date format of the article back to mdy (possibly due to the previous editing). But the user who changed the date format in late September 2016, reverted the User's date format edit, claiming it violated MOS:RETAIN and that mdy is objectively unpopular because it is only used in the United States and Canada. Of course, according to the MOS:RETAIN, this claim is false. This means that there were a person who wanted to change to mdy at least within 3 years. Also, the claim about reverting seems to be that mdy should only be used in countries that use it, such as the United States and Canada. The editor also claimed in the conversation that I was violating the MOS:RETAIN by reverting this. Therefore, the argument the user who changed the date format is the WP:LAWYERING (willfully misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions). Also, what you say is an essay (Wikilawyering), so don't say it as a guideline. It is stated as this page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. What you're doing is the Wikilawying, not me.

Also, the important thing is: if discussion fails to resolve the question of which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor, according to the MOS:NUM. This article should be returned to its initially established format unless an explicit consensus for a change comes about. People also need to stop annoying others by going around fixing date formats without gaining explicit consensus. You have no good reason not to follow the MOS:DATERET. WAccount1234567890 (talk) 12:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@WAccount1234567890 This entire situation, which represents like 80% of your editing, is pretty much what DATERET normally tries to prevent. You are not improving the encyclopedia by fighting this fight: You're wasting editor time. It's becoming very disruptive that anyone has to argue for a 7 year EDITCON. Drop it. -- ferret (talk) 15:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

It wouldn't have been a waste of time without this no improvement editing. You're making it look like I did something wrong by blaming me when I didn't. I'm not strongly against keeping this format since Wikipedia is frankly inconsistent in date format, but if it doesn't follow Nintendo's style, it looks very inappropriate article's format. It's not a rule, but it's a good reason by Marchjuly. Thorkild Grosbøll is a good example of changing mdy by sourcing universities date format that is not specified in the rules. A formal closure by an uninvolved editor made the change on the basis that the strongest evidence were that the style guides for the two largest Danish universities on dates written in English support other format. But, as I said, Wikipedia is very inconsistent on this, so I'm not even strongly opposed to keeping this format. It's not a rule, but despite the good evidence that Nintendo and Japan mainly use mdy, if you don't want to use it, then don't use it. WAccount1234567890 (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right. The fact that someone erred 7 years ago is not an excuse to go on an arguably disrutive "date warring" campaign, thumping rules you don't clearly understand as to their intent or their interaction with higher-order rules like EDITCON policy. I'm strongly reminded of my neighbor who thinks that because someone across the street was rude to her a few months ago, than the appropriate thing to do is start up a yelling match with that person every other morning and wake up the entire neighborhood with pointless drama about nothing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

The point is that there is no reason for the date method we currently use to be good. WAccount1234567890 (talk) 01:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

WAccount1234567890: "It appears that you are now explicitly advocating an edit that explicitly violates MOS:DATERET" is pure wikilawyering and wikibureaucratizing, as well as a straw man. What I actual have been really clearly saying is that after 7 years at a very busy article it just does not matter that some edit didn't adhere to DATERET. After that long a time, WP:EDITCON policy clearly applies (or we would have no such policy). People had all the time in the world to object to a procedural mistake 7 years ago. "Japan uses mdy inconsistently, but uses mdy a lot like Canada in English document .... the good evidence that ... Japan mainly use mdy": This is at least an attempt at a valid argument, but is not supported by the evidence so far at all. What we've seen is YMD proliferation in Japan, with only spotty and entirely conflicting use of either MDY or DMY. If you have strong statistical evidence favoring one over the other, then please present it. "I don't think it's not too late": I think that meant "I don't think it's too late", but regardless, the entire point of this discussion being open is that it's not too late to establish a clear consensus for one arbitrary format over the other (or maybe you can actually prove statistically that one would be non-arbitrarily preferable). But venting repetitively about the fact that someone 7 years ago took a unilateral action that a guideline says they shouldn't have is in no way a valid argument for one format or the other, it's just unhelpful noise. As you put it in summarizing WP:LAWYER, you are "willfully misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions", namely the pointless action of changing a date format in a way that does not objectively help readers or editors, all based on trying to pit a guideline, DATERET, about what should procedurally happen (but did not happen, a very long time ago), against a policy, EDITCON, which specifies that after a long time has passed consensus presumptively exists for content the way it presently is (and it doesn't contain any magical exceptions regarding how the content got into the form in which it has become long-term accepted).

But what's much more troubling about WAccount1234567890's position is "if it doesn't follow Nintendo's style, it looks very inappropriate article's format". See also Marchjuly: "Nintendo, FWIW, seems to be using the MDY format on its website." This is an utterly bogus argument. Wikipedia does not follow the date-formatting (or other writing-style preferences) of random off-site companies. A "do what Nintendo likes, or else" notion being the actual so-called rationale behind this huge waste of editorial time and attention is grossly inappropriate. Also, WAccount1234567890 having only the bare beginnings of an edit history at all, with zero contributions to mainspace, yet presuming to lecture everyone on Wikipedia policy, and with every single edit but one (technically three, counting the intial errors in posting it to the wrong page) having to do with complaining about date formatting, is ... "interesting".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Even if it is not a rule method, then you are advocating changing the date format without justifiable reasons. Also you seem to keep thinking that this date format has been changed in a legitimate way. Rules aren't meant to be ignored if you don't like them. If there is sufficient evidence, it is possible to ignore it, but if you ignore it because you don't like it, there is no reason for the rules to exist. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them, according to WP:NOTBURO. According to WP:TALKDONTREVERT, in determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. Since you're not giving any good argument why the article shouldn't use mdy, so your argument is just your personal opinion. The reason WP:DATERET exists is to use the first date format if the problem is not resolved. Also, please read my comment. See this for why we should follow the Nintendo style. We do not follow the university style, but since this article have followed it, it would be appropriate to follow it. I'm not doing WP:WIKILAWYER, and you are the one making straw man arguments and bogus claims. Rather, you and the person who changed this date format are doing WP:WIKILAWYER. There are substantive reasons for the support to change mdy. Date format editing without justifiable reason and consensus and your reasons cannot be valid for the reasons above. You are currently doing all the negative things you said, not me. There appears to be no fair reason to maintain this format as of now. Also, as I keep saying, even without consensus it should be changed back to the mdy date format according to MOS:DATERET. It cannot be explicitly stated here that a whole consensus has been achieved in this date format. Since you haven't posted a good reason why you shouldn't use mdy and MOS:NUM says to use the first major contributor date format if discussion fails to resolve the question of which style to use in an article, this article should be reverted to the first major contributor style. You claim to currently use YMD, but even by your claim this article should be reverted to mdy as the MOS:NUM says. Also, WP:CON doesn't prevent this

. WAccount1234567890 (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Its probably just as easy to have a poll now to establish whether MDY or DMY should apply, ignoring what is already on the article. Switching to whichever choice is made is easy via script and we will have clear documentation of this. Masem (t) 01:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

A straightforward !voting RfC would probably be the most productive way to resolve this. Otherwise, I get a strong feeling that two editors above are going to continue harping on the "seven years ago a great wrong happened" nonsense argument, trying to hold a bureaucratizing interpretation of the DATERET guideline above actual EDITCON policy (all the while professing that they don't really care and it doesn't really matter, except for this procedural great wrong needing to be righted), until everyone else gets tired and goes away. It's irritating me sorely and causing me to write more than I should here, becuase the fallacies are piling one on top of another and needs to be deflated.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Wrong happened seven years ago is a good argument, considering that there is unlikely to be a consensus on this discussion page. According to MOS:NUM, if discussion fails to resolve the question of which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. You are one making a nonsense argument. WAccount1234567890 (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Let's add some context. About 7 years ago a lot of since-rejected consensuses were at play. DMY was often used for Japan at the time for video games, which is no longer the case (we now use MDY or DMY depending on first chosen, per DATERET). Secondly, 7-8 years ago, it was a regular view to treat developer/manufacturer of video game (software and hardware) as a Strong National Tie. This has since been abandoned/rejected, but was true at the time. So no, it was not wrong seven years ago. Your statements give the impression you are attempting to force a conclusion of no consensus in order to get MDY restored, but the statements in this talk page don't support that. They support the following varied but not mutually exclusive positions: It doesn't matter, DMY for seven years is an EDITCON, we could do a poll. Why do you even care, account with only four edits outside this topic?' -- ferret (talk) 01:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

If an implicit consensus has been achieved, it can be said that the implicit consensus has been achieved in a way that does not comply with the rules. Whether it's 7 years or longer, there's no good reason why this article should be retained with this rule-breaking edit. It cannot be said that date format consensus has been reached with the rule-breaking edit, without good reason or discussion on the article's talk page. Even if the WP:EDITCON is currently applied, edits that do not comply with the rules should be reverted unless the reason can be explained. And the rule does not prevent the date format from being changed to the 11-year implicit consensus revision date format. Although they support the following varied but not mutually exclusive positions, they haven't said why this article should be retained with the rule-breaking edit. Additionally, those who claim they do not support it lack good reasons as to why it should be retained to the rule-breaking edit. Even if you don't care about changing the date format, the date format of this article should be changed. According to the WP:TALKDONTREVERT, if an edit is challenged, or is likely to be challenged, editors should use talk pages to explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia. Despite the violation, the changer cannot even explain why it improves the encyclopedia. If you apply WP:DATETIES, it seems more appropriate to apply it to mdy, as this date format seems to be the most commonly used date format in that nation (see Marchjuly's references). Assuming the DATETIES is not applied, there is no reason not to revert the edit that violates the rules. According to the MOS:DATERET, the date format should be changed by strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page. There is no indication here that date format changes can be made through voting. And no good reason is given as to why a rule-breaking edit should be changed to a voting method that is not recommended according to WP:DEMOCRACY. There currently appears to be no consensus on why the rule violation edit should not be reverted. If you cannot explain a reason why this article violates the rule, the article should be reverted to mdy that has been used for 11 years until the rule-breaking edit. WAccount1234567890 (talk) 10:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The rules are not strict as you make them to be to. Nobody is perfect and knows all the rule details, and so EDITCON heals whatever little rule violations occur from time to time. Wikipedia couldn't work if it was otherwise. Gawaon (talk) 11:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Have you read all my comments? I know the rules aren't strict, but there's no good reason to violate them here. Also, you are making your personal opinion, which is not even stated in the rule that WP:EDITCON heals whatever little rule violations occur from time to time. And check out all my comments for more other reasons. WAccount1234567890 (talk) 12:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

At the end of the day, there is also Ignore all rules if it helps to serve WP better. Constant battling over date formats is not helpful to WP, so the fact that the date change that likely was against DATERET has stood for 7 years without challenge is exactly when IAR comes into play. Masem (t) 13:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, MOS are guidelines. They are not policy, and they are boiler plated as It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. This is easily one such exception, and all this heat with no light or actual possible improvement to the article for our readers is a waste of time. -- ferret (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

If you think this is an exception, please explain why the edit that violates the rule without good reason is an exception. You are saying this is an exception for no reason. WAccount1234567890 (talk) 12:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I've already explained it. 7 years ago, developer/manufacturer was treated as a STRONGTIE. 7 years ago, Japan was often treated as DMY, also under STRONGTIE. 7 years ago, an edit was made and has stood for 7 years, EDITCON. This edit was not wrong 7 years ago, even if it's not the stance we would take today, and in the following 7 years it stood despite heavy editing and patrolling of this article by people who know MOS just fine. I'm being very serious here: Harping on this as the near sole purpose of your account (all but 3 edits, it seems) borders on NOTHERE disruptive behavior. You aren't here to improve the encyclopedia, you're here to rule lawyer something that doesn't matter. -- ferret (talk) 14:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

You keep saying that this edit was not wrong 7 years ago per MOS:DATETIES, but the rule does not support that. Your argument is similar to the argument that in the past, rules were rarely followed in articles without good reasons to WP:IAR, and that this should be retained to this day. Similarly, the point is there is no good reason not to revert the edit that violates the rules. You also don't even have a good reason other than about the rules. Even if this is not a rule violation as you say, you have no reason not to follow the maintenance rules specified in the MOS:NUM. It'll be okay if the date format editor wasn't here to not improve the encyclopedia and to WP:LAWYERING for MOS:DATETIES without a good reason. Also, your claims against me are baseless. By addressing the violations, I'm improving the encyclopedia. And I have good reasons other than rules, but you don't, so you're here to rule lawyer something. I've already explained that why this article should use mdy, but you havn't given no good reason why this article should be retained in this currently rule-breaking format other than claiming that this is an exception because it's 7 years. Furthermore, WP:EDITCON does not prevent all changes without consensus. WAccount1234567890 (talk) 03:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

If you ignore a rule because you don't like it, there's no reason for the rule to exist. There is no reason to ignore the rules, and no good reason to retain the edit that ignore the rules for no reason. And as you said, battling over date formats is not helpful to WP, so this article's date format should be reverted to the style used by the first major contributor unless good reasons can be explained. According to the MOS:NUM: if discussion fails to resolve the question of which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. There is no reason to apply WP:IAR here. WAccount1234567890 (talk) 12:00, 29 November 2023 (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.