Talk:Nintendo 3DS

Eshop

Rather than engaging in a edit war, I'm going to put a request here for a discussion on how to fix the eshop paragraph. It's not disputed that the eshop is no longer open for 3ds, nor is it disputed that the eshop still exists for the Switch. However, the way the article is currently written isn't adequate in my opinion. I think it's fair to say "the eshop was the 3ds's online....", since it's no longer in service. It was the 3ds's online storefront, and now it's not. Users can't download games from it any longer, but they could before it closed. I don't think this implies the eshop is closed all together, and any curious parties could just visit the eshop article to learn more. Darkage7_[Talk] 19:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

My objection is strictly the proposed wording that referred to eshop itself in the past tense, which is objectively wrong, the eshop itself still is an active thing, you just can't access it from a 3DS anymore. Sergecross73 msg me 19:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I would argue that's not a fair assessment. I don't think the phrasing implied that at all, and therefore isn't 'objectively wrong'. Saying it was the 3DS storefront doesn't imply the eshop is no longer a storefront, just that the 3DS feature is no longer online. To use an example in a different setting to illustrate my point, saying "Pepsi was the soda vendor for Arby's before they switched to Coca-Cola" is objectively true, and it doesn't imply Pepsi is no longer a soda vendor; it just points out that particular relationship is severed. Darkage7_[Talk] 19:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@Darkage7 I have a Nintendo 3DS that I still love to use. The eShop is still "online" in the sense that you can redownload content you have previously purchased, at least in North America. You just can't buy anything. This is the case for the "forseeable future". [1] Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Lifespan

As to the lifespan parameter in the infobox, the naming implies that the data in this parameter should be a timespan, as in the amount of time the device was on sale. In this case, 10 years. "Historically" the lifespan has been the release date and discontinued date, but this feels like unnecessary redundancy. That information is already in the infobox, and presented in a more robust manner. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Sergecross73 who suggested a discussion was necessary. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I don't understand this at all. When it was active is far more meaningful than simply including a number of years without context. If it's too "redundant", then the whole field should be dropped. People can do basic math to understand that 2020 minus 2011 equals 9. We don't need a dedicate field to that. Sergecross73 msg me 21:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. We can just get rid of it. I agree that people can do math. RickyCourtney (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)