# Talk:Miiverse

I don't feel that the page should include discussion of continuations of Miiverse. Most of them garnered limited usage, and were very small compared to Miiverse. (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
I think it's not a bad idea to briefly mention them, but we don't need to go in depth into them. There are dedicated wikis to clone lore and while I agree with you that most didn't get much traction, there are examples like Closedverse, which had over 8000 registered users and Rverse which is still active to this day. I'm not saying we should mention every clone and who made them, I'm saying we could have an "Aftermath" section which basically says attempts at remaking this were made with the most popular among them being Closedverse or Rverse. Mintphin (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I feel that rverse needs a mention here. The rverse framework is the largest of the Miiverse clones and should be placed here as the continuation of Miiverse. Clonemii and Uiiverse aren't as popular as rverse. They have Uiiverse has been discontinued and Clonemii has been less popular due to rverse.
Just saying, rverse should be listed as the official clone framework.
Note: I am in no way affiliated with rverse. 
I Am Llanfairwyll 00:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure why all of a sudden this has become in issue with someone after years of interpreting MOS:COMPNOW to have the first mention of the program be in present tense.  And I'm not sure why User:Loytra has decided to not follow the basic protocol of WP:BRD, which says that if your edit is reverted you don't just keep changing it back because you think you're right, but you begin a discussion.
But that said, MOS:COMPNOW has been used on any article discussing technology or software for many years now. It says that Always use present tense for verbs that describe genres, types and classes, even if the subject of the description (e.g. program, library, device) no longer exists, is discontinued or is unsupported/unmaintained. I believe that the User:Loytra is misinterpreting the part of MOS:TENSE that says Generally, use past tense only for past events, and for subjects that are dead or no longer meaningfully exist. Use past tense for articles about periodicals no longer produced, with common-sense exceptions.. I can see and understand where that user interpreted that part to include this article. But that part is talking about people and physical objects, not software.
So I ask, per WP:BRD that User:Loytra revert his own edit and then discuss on this talk page. You shouldn't get to have your interpretation of the guideline in the article simply because you are more willing to have an edit war than someone else. JOJ  Hutton  10:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Addendum- Four days were given to respond to this discussion. Editor was tagged and has been online since this post was created. User:Loytra has had ample time to respond and has decided to ignore this discussion. Since the previous version had been in place for years, per WP:BRD, the article should go back and reflect the longstanding version, and not the version that User:Loytra has decided it should be. Editors do not get a Veto on an article and change a longstanding version, simply because they want to edit war. So please follow WP:BRD. User:Loytra, your next edit in regards to this article should be this talk page, not to revert the article back, per WP:BRD.--JOJ  Hutton  11:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I apologise for taking a few days to respond but I think it's unfair to claim I've "decided to ignore this discussion"; just because I've been online doesn't mean I've had the time nor energy to sit down and properly respond to this discussion — it hasn't even been a week since you made the original comment. I additionally think it's unfair to claim that I made my changes "simply because [I] want[ed] to edit war"; WP:BRD isn't binding policy and I didn't violate WP:3RR. However, I do commend you for engaging with this with such civility. It's rare to find an editor that sticks to edit warring policies so dutifully and I really thank you for doing so. I apologise for not being the one to leave a message on the talk page in the first place and I wish to follow your example in the future.

Anyway, as for the original subject of this debate: I agree that my edits were wrong and were not in line with MOS:TENSE. However, I still think the lead sentence is confusing and implies that Miiverse is an active service. Maybe rephrasing it to read "Miiverse is a discontinued social network..." would be an okay compromise? Loytra (talk) 12:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
First off, thanks for the Barnstar, I appreciate it. Sorry about how I may have worded the previous message. You may not have been ignoring it wholeheartedly, but I was concerned that the message wasn't being received.
The best solution to the tense issue would be to say "Is" first then go to "Was" afterward. There are other ways to accomplish this goal, but this is only one of them. Thanks, if you have another solution that would be fine too.--JOJ  Hutton  13:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)


### Miiverse
I've listed this article for peer review because I wanted to get some experience with bringing an article to GA/FA status, and this is an article I've made major contributions to recently. I want to know what suffices for an article to be carried to GA status within the scope of WP:VG, if there are any more sources that should be added, extra information, more images, errors to correct, etc.
Thanks, Surayeproject3 (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2025 (UTC)


#### Comments from Z1720
After a quick skim, I added two "citation needed" tags. Once those are resolved, I think this is ready for WP:GAN. If you are looking for more sources, I suggest Google Scholar, WP:LIBRARY, archive.org, or your local library system. Z1720 (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

@Z1720 I just tackled the tags. The first tag about the E3 communities, I copied a citation for one of the sources since it mentions those being in the archive. The second tag about nostalgia for the platform, I added a new source. If that resolves everything than we can probably close the peer review and I'll apply for WP:GAN. Surayeproject3 (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
@Surayeproject3: Instructions on how to close PRs is at WP:PRG. I recommend using the script. Z1720 (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)