Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Talk:Nintendo. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Talk:Nintendo, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Talk:Nintendo in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Talk:Nintendo you have here. The definition of the word Talk:Nintendo will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTalk:Nintendo, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Archived RFD discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago19 comments7 people in discussion
Note, however, that even if the new proposed litmus test is enacted, the word will require three out of context uses by three different disinterested authors in three different years. Cheers! bd2412T00:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
Huh? What would qualify as attributive then? A Nintendo thumb is not a thumb made by Nintendo, and when an author writes that "bullfighting... was the Nintendo of the day" he is not asserting that bullfighting was a form of video gaming. -- Visviva17:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
That is a fabricated and entirely invalid demand. It does not require citations as it has never failed RFV. If it's citations that you want, then it should be RFV'd. Restored yet again. DAVilla03:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not that I'm aware of. Abu-Lughod is clearly out of context. I can't tell with the Gladstone quotation because there is another use on that page (274) and likewise with Meyer on the next page (129) that I can't view. The quotation with "Nintendo thumb" is excellent in my opinion. Much earlier in the book Schneider has a questionable use that might be able to identify it as a game machine, but I don't think it detracts in this case. So overall, although I can't confirm a couple, there's nothing I have to stike any of the quotations either. DAVilla05:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
(Still voting delete.) How do any of those (except the 2007 quotation - possibly even it) not refer directly to the product/company? There is no figurative use here; the preposterous entry needs to have such citations before being re-entered anyhow. But from what I see on the entry, no such citations have yet been given. And the encyclopedic/spam definition line has made it back in. --Connel MacKenzie17:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
No figurative use is necessary, only out-of-context use, which is what those citations provide. And as I said above, it has never been put to RFV, so it doesn't require citations anyhow.
Let's be clear on this. You cannot require citations for just any term that has been deleted. Here's an example: For a term that is deleted with sysop discretion, a simple reference will do, as one that's good enough would suggest that the sysop was mistaken to delete on sight. Such errors are forgiveable of course, but the best action is to RFV if it might be in use but not clearly so.
Terms that fail RFD are failed because the community does not want them. What good would citations of "back door" do if we had already decided "back door" was not idiomatic? If it were for a different definition, such as a figurative use as you suggest, then sure, a reference would be useful to show that it isn't a vandal-inspired repeat entry. But how does the fact that "back door" isn't idiomatic in the most common sense require that a different sense, maybe a common one that was overlooked, be fully cited?
Even so, Nintendo is not in the same boat. Nintendo is a word that had been nominated for deletion before we had rules on brand names. The formalization of those rules and the vote to accept them arose out of arguments like this, where it was clear that the community was in favor of keeping at least some of the terms but where batches were brought up relentlessly for deletion, and yes, many of them being axed. We don't need discussions like this anymore to decide if an entry like "Nintendo" should be kept. Please read the WT:CFI. DAVilla19:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Indeed, a review of that vote shows me that the second definition should stay (as per misguided consensus.) But I still don't see how definition "1" ("the manufacturer founded in...") is anything other than spam. --Connel MacKenzie05:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago17 comments5 people in discussion
In the sense of "A Japanese manufacturer known for its games consoles, founded in 1989." This nomination is a result of a previous RFD now archived to the talk page.
Delete sense; the company can & should be mentioned in the Etymology section, but a company name as such is not dictionary material, just as personal names are not. Such senses provide no particular value to users, and are arguably detrimental to the long-term health of the project. -- Visviva13:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
That's some pretty blatant abuse, DAVilla. The original nomination was for that. The second (afterthought) sense had that whole vote for its benefit, but the first was the cause of the original listing - now relisted - for what? To obfuscate the conversation more? The tenuous vote that presumably allows this to stay came from your WT:VOTE (to game the system further) laced with numerous deceptions resulting in a bogus vote, leaving en.wiktionary exposed to massive spam (presumably from newcomer's confusion) so that Wiktionary can follow no other reasonable dictionary on the convention of simply excluding companies and products? And now, when I (the last hold-out) get complacent, finally showing signed of at least partially accepting the conclusion of the bogus vote, you do this? And why did you shuffle off the "archive" in the old format? By plastering that around on talk pages, it gets a second life as SPAM. I hope this is not what you'd call "cooperation" or "collaboration." --Connel MacKenzie03:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
In a community as small as ours, there is a natural tendency for every discussion to become personal, but this is not especially constructive. So let's stay off the ad-hominems, please. On the matter of archiving, if we're going to (grudgingly) accept the new system of archiving to history rather than Talk, you need to (grudgingly) accept that some of us find this less than optimal and would prefer to retain Talk-page archives for those discussions which seem likely to remain relevant. -- Visviva03:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Actually I am quite relieved that we now, finally, have a semi-automated archiving scheme in place, and somewhat surprised too because I didn't think anyone had seriously taken up the project, which wasn't a light one by any means. And Connel is right because we should not keep talk pages when the entry does not warrant inclusion either (because of search engines, at the very least). If I put this in the wrong place, very simply it's because I didn't know where to put it, and it had to go somewhere or there would be two Nintendo headers on this page. Connel, by all means, correct my mistake. DAVilla07:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
The RFD was for the entire entry, and both senses existed at that time. My primary goal was to resolve that RFD. In fact I thought I was doing you a favor by listing for deletion the counterpart of what you had only "partially accept the conclusion" of keeping. I wouldn't call nominating something you want deleted to be abuse at all, although I will grant you that I am blatantly pushing the envelope by voting to keep. According to our CFI, this shouldn't have a definition line. Hence I would be very much content with removal to the etymology if there isn't consensus either way, and even that should be brought to question if there is consensus to delete. Judging from the last RFD that might be the case. On the other hand, I had seen someone, I think Encyclopetey, support keeping the company name in one instance because the brand name was also kept, so it's worth getting some feedback on the issue.
Getting somewhat off topic, I still don't know why you are so hostile against me on the brand names vote. The previous vote, which would have let in a number of entries more, looked like it might pass 13-6-1 until after a few weeks' wait I went ahead and killed it, offering to withdraw my vote, specifically so that the criteria could be tightened, which if you compare the two versions is exactly what was done: I added extra restrictions and improved community support to an 11-3-2 margin. And for this I'm accused of "gam the system" and "numerous deceptions". Connel, convince me it wouldn't be a waste of time and I'll grant you a recall and a revote. It would be enough for me if you, Williamsayers, or Dmcdevit can find one other (whitelisted or at least regular) contributor who's opposed, or someone who voted in favor who is no longer, or someone who would like to have voted but somehow missed the chance. But if it really has the communtiy support, then stop trying to use that as a bargaining chip.
Nominations like this have the purpose of guaging community opinion. If you want to pursuade the community to delete, do it without attacking me. DAVilla07:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
OK, I am obviously very confused by this re-listing and apologize for the "attack." I still don't understand why you thought the previous discussion was irrelevant to the notion of the single sense being moved from a definition line, to the etymology. --Connel MacKenzie07:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Don't apologize, just please stop attacking and/or "attacking" me on that vote. I know it didn't go perfectly well, but it isn't misleading to say it has community support. Or if it really doesn't then let's see about it.
I know you've copied discussion when relisting, but with this being for a narrower scope, I was trying to avoid confusion. Yes it is relevant insofar as Williamsayers is of like mind and would vote to delete every definition from the page as well as the page itself. Dmol we can't assume the same of since he voted in favor of the first brand names proposal and, considering the changes to CFI since, may or may not support this sense. DAVilla07:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Delete entry. This is not generic like, say kleenex. If you talk about a "Nintendo," you are not talking about any game system. I'm sure some quotes from morons can be dug up - that isn't the point. When one refers to a "Nintendo," they are referring to an electronic game made by that particular manufacturer - which, like all similar products, is not even interchangeable with any other. In that respect, this entry always was and always will be SPAM. --Connel MacKenzie03:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Weak delete sense The company sense should be deleted, it belongs on 'pedia, however the games console sense should remain as it is not a straight meaning. (It is, I suppose, and abbreviation of Nintendo 64, Nintendo Entertainment System, Super Nintendo. etc.etc.). Though I do note that we have Microsoft as a company, and I see no harm in having that as a meaning, with the definition being a link to the 'pedia article. Conrad.Irwin11:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
I don't see "rfd" in any of the comments in the entry's history. It gets mentioned a lot in other discussions, but no one ever got around to actually nominating it. . <mostly joking> I could, if you'd like.</joke> --Connel MacKenzie08:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
(Undid your <small> to reply to it.) Actually, please do nominate Microsoft. It would be another good test case, since it is only a company name, and there are no products associated with it. DAVilla18:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Merge senses. It has enough references to keep, though all capitalized, which is odd. The extra company information isn't necessary. I agree with the deletes to an extent and I'm not going to fight for its preservation. If kept, it really only needs one sense and let the encyclopedia give the corporate history, etc.--Halliburton Shill08:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence. Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
"Any video game system." Appears to have been discussed before (see talk page) but has no proof or citations. Equinox◑18:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I think writing (Nintendo "Luck of Heaven") gives the false impression that Nintendo actually means luck of heaven.
The Japanese Wikipedia says Nintendo comes from「人生一寸先が闇、運は天に任せ、与えられた仕事に全力で取り組む」So putting that in would make much more sense. Kampy (talk) 10:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
I can't read Japanese or Chinese characters, but from what I understand of the above, isn't that phrase just a longer quote that has "Luck of Heaven" within it?
