Talk:Nintendo

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)

Neologism

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