Talk:Nintendo

"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.

Karuta vs Koppai

So looking at the another recent change of the name - [1], I'm trying to figure out what's the most correct transliteration then. See the Talk:Nintendo/Archive_7#So,_Koppai_or_Karuta?. The problem is that we need to figure out what the real transliteration, considering the whole Karuta thing. The whole unexplained changing there and back cannot continue. - Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Quetstar: who did a change without much explanation other than "founded as", when even that actually isn't really proven. - Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

It's Koppai, a quick google search should do the trick. Quetstar (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I think you are deeply misunderstanding the issue. What, exactly, should we trust in the quick google search in question? How can we be sure it's not the issue of WP:CITOGENESIS in question right now with the google search? - Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 02:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Almost all reliable sources say it is Koppai. Karuta is an another reading of 骨牌, but in Nintendo's case, the correct reading is Koppai. Quetstar (talk) 04:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

One of the first entries in the google search for me is Wired, which is RS (WP:VG/RS), that says "Nintendo Koppai", but at the bottom of article it says "Source: Wikipedia". Looking at the rest of RS, I'm unconvinced that we can trust any of them on company being founded as "Koppai", especially seeing weird mentions that it was actually renamed to that in 1951, not founded. So again, whom do we trust? - Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 06:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Hell, https://www.nintendo.co.jp/corporate/history/index.html , `1951年 （昭和26年）任天堂骨牌株式会社に社名変更。` - Nintendo itself says that it "changed company name to 任天堂骨牌", which is the Karuta/Koppai in question. So doesn't look like a founding name either! Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 06:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh hey! https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2017/security_q1703.pdf ! 4th page!

`昭和25年3月 任天堂かるた株式会社に社名変更するとともに、合名会社山内任天堂(現 株式会社山内)より

大統領印等のかるたの製造業務を継承。`

Changed company name in Showa 25 to... 任天堂かるた. "Nintendo Karuta". Directly writing in hiragana, かるた as "Ka ru ta". Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 07:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The Wired article also takes its sourcing from a book and other sources. The 1951 name change is also out of context, since the intended reading in English was Nintendo Playing Card Company. I am talking about the name Nintendo had when it was founded in 1889. Also, I made the edit in October, which was 5 months ago and was not reverted. So i really think there is no need for discussion or debate. Finally, 骨牌 has two readings, Koppai and Karuta. The former was Nintendo's official one when it was founded, but the latter was also used. Quetstar (talk) 05:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

> The former was Nintendo's official one when it was founded, but the latter was also used

You might need to prove that, and also to prove that you are not misled by the WP:CITOGENESIS that happened here. Through investigating the sources, it seems that the company was actually named "Yamauchi Nintendo" at first, but the 1951 (Showa 26) name change was misinterpreted/misunderstood somewhere around ~2000, and then through the 2005 edit seeped (i.e. citogenesis) into other sources. It is verifable that the company called itself 任天堂かるた in hiragana in 1950 (Showa 25).

For example, looking at the Florent Gorges book (published in 2012, mind that – might be already affected by citogenesis) about history of Nintendo, there's this quote on page 26: "He felt that Marufuku and Yamauchi Nintendo were the one and the same, so in 1951 (Showa 26) he merged them into a public limited company Nintendo Koppai", which already contradicts the own Nintendo's doc about 任天堂かるた.

It does not matter when exactly you did the change, and honestly it does not seem that you understand the problem here. For example, the "Nintendo Karuta" edit was in the article since 2021. Why didn't you debate that then? Does it mean so I can ignore that and edit it back to "Nintendo Karuta" without the need for discussion or debate?

Anyway, as far as I see now, it's actually would be prudent to remove the mention of "Karuta/Koppai" from sentences like "Nintendo was founded in 1889 as Nintendo Koppai by craftsman Fusajiro Yamauchi", by changing it to "Nintendo was founded in 1889 by craftsman Fusajiro Yamauchi", because we can see that "Karuta"/"Koppai" is a 1950/1951 name, not the 1889 one.

But this might be a hard topic to breach into, because as far as I see, people may have a hard time acknowledging citogenesis/circular referencing (i.e. WP:CIRCULAR into "reliable sources"). Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 07:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Also looking at the David Sheff book, might be prudent to contact him to verify if his reporting is correct at this moment. Going to try to contact/e-mail him soon. Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 07:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

And this supposed 1889 sign is just... what? Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 07:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I did not debate because no one raised the issue. Also, the company wasn't properly incorporated until 1933, so any records before that will be hard to find.

Quetstar (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

And we usually never contact sources, so it is pointless to do so now. Quetstar (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The History of Nintendo article is even weirder in that regard, it says that company was founded as "Yamauchi Nintendo", and then renamed in 1950 to "Nintendo Karuta". Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

So this is where it was introduced in 2005. No sources, no nothing. Hugely suspecting the resulting WP:CITOGENESIS from that point, because I can't really find any good mentions in RS before 2005 related to company name. - Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 07:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Good detective work. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

New cat

Please could somebody add Category:Companies in the Nikkei 225 ? 78.148.152.27 (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Should be easy enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.44.93 (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

No controversies? Is this objectively realistic?

There have been several topics created requesting a controversies section, but none ever added. That makes me think this page deserves a WP:NPOV nomination for failing to do so, specifically failing WP:BALANCE?

These topics are related to discussing controversies in the past. Talk:Nintendo/Archive 5
Talk:Nintendo/Archive 6#Controversies

https://kotaku.com/the-mess-that-came-after-nintendo-fired-an-employee-1771261927
https://www.polygon.com/24090415/nintendo-switch-controversies-debates
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60405561
https://www.ign.com/articles/nintendo-america-contractors-full-time-complaints-report
https://nintendo.fandom.com/wiki/Category:Nintendo_controversies

Of all of the above they're probably not all equally significant, but it seems odd that there is absolutely no mention of anything of the sort. I don't hold a grudge against Nintendo (admittedly I also don't know the behind-the-scenes of the company all that well), but it seems for objectivity there MUST be such a section. I don't think there is any company of the size of Nintendo for which the Wikipedia page doesn't have a controversy and/or criticism section. Ybllaw (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)