Talk:Nintendo

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)

For the record, while the other sites are fine, wikis hosted on Fandom are not reliable sources. Harryhenry1 (talk) 07:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The Wii U isn't the worst selling console in Nintendo's history

The Wii U isn't the worst selling video game console in Nintendo's history, it is actually the Virtual Boy, this is not mentioned at all on the page, neither is it mentioned even on the Virtual Boy's own Wikipedia page, instead, this Wikipedia page incorrectly says that "the Wii U is the least successful video game console in Nintendo's history". The Wii U sold 13.56 million units worldwide, while the Virtual Boy sold 770,000 units. Can someone please change this? 2A02:2F0A:B412:7300:80EB:BEF:5CEC:1C2F (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Environmental Record comes from activism and less from unbiased assessments

For one Greenpeace constantly ranks electronic companies low from their environmental assessments despite efforts made by those companies to reduce their impacts. Similarly the Enough Project used a lack of information as an attack and thus gave Nintendo a score of 0. These come from old sources that have not been renewed with later rankings nor a corrected record on Nintendo's response to these inquiries that are over a decade old.

This gives the appearance of pure activism attacks and not actual credible efforts to create a true environmental assessment nor stance from Nintendo. Setery10 (talk) 21:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2024

Change percentage of Saudi Arabia stake in Nintendo, which is now at 6.3 percent. 188.65.191.61 (talk) 15:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you! Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)