Talk:Aspect Co., Ltd.

Was Naruto Ninja Council 1 really developed by Aspect CO.?
You list Naruto Ninja Council 1 as a game as one of the games Aspect had developed. Though in the credits of the game it says the game was developed by Arc System Works. Was it just an error by the people in charge of the credits? And why then the game isn't in the list of the games that Arc System Works had developed? 94.254.184.106 (talk) 13:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 25 August 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Aspect Co., Ltd. Per consensus, NATDAB. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Aspect Co. → Aspect (company) – The official name is Aspect Co., Ltd. but I don't like how ugly that looks with the Co. Ltd. so (company) is better. Either way, just Aspect Co. is wrong. TarkusAB talk / contrib 02:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:NATURALDAB -- could also be Aspect Co. Ltd. or Aspect Co., Ltd. for NATURALDAB purposes -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 06:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Aspect Co., Ltd. looks like garbage but at least it's accurate. The "Co., Ltd." part is just a translation of the kabushiki-gaisha part of Japanese company names, so I don't know why someone removed the Ltd part. I get NATURALDAB but I still think Aspect (company) is easier to read and understand, but whatever. TarkusAB talk / contrib 06:49, 31 August 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.
 * Support. At least from the perspective of Naming conventions (companies), both ways – "(company)" or a suffix like "Co., Ltd." – are acceptable if disambiguation is needed. I could support either. Adumbrativus (talk) 03:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Just calling the article as Aspect is fine. Roberth Martinez (talk) 03:20, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose as ambiguous with Aspect Software. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Aspect ≠ Aspect Software. Also it's a former name, and can be resolved with hatnote. TarkusAB talk / contrib 18:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The fact that it's a former name is not so important, since Wikipedia is not just trying to provide current information. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of currently operating businesses. It also discusses notable topics of historical interest. The name of Aspect Software is often shortened to just "Aspect" – including in the Wikipedia article on the subject. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose and move to Aspect Co., Ltd.. Perceived "ugliness" or "prettiness" of article titles means very little as an argument for a move, as it is 100% subjective, and WP:NATURAL supports the non-disambiguated title. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose and move to Aspect Co., Ltd. per User:Zxcvbnm. Let's favor accuracy in the company title here. BD2412  T 05:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)