Talk:List of Nintendo products

message: Can someone fix the links to Mike Tyson's Punch-Out!! and Punch-Out!! so that it doesn't mess up the table (title, developer, release dates)? I tried to fix it but it didn't work. 2605:E000:121D:8BF5:E53D:C0CC:493F:919F (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Has been fixed a long time ago by somebody more skilled than ya :) Easeface (talk) 01:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Mike Tyson's Punch-Out!!'' and ''Punch-Out!!'' question 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :List of mobile games published by Nintendo and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 25#List of mobile games published by Nintendo until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Steel1943 (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "List of mobile games published by Nintendo" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Okay, so recently, someone discovered Doom, Minecraft, and Minecraft Dungeons to have the same barcode header as other published Nintendo titles, but I also have questions. First off, why aren't these games then listed as published by Nintendo on their websites, eShop listings, and even their financial earnings? Also, could it just be that Nintendo helped distribute these titles and nothing more? I don't know the whole barcode thing and would just like some clarification since I'm confused. Thank you for your time. NinStar123 (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like a better understanding of the line drawn between Publishing and Distributing as it concerns bar codes as well. -- ferret (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

text: I checked and confirmed the barcodes, but Wolfenstein and Skyrim also had the same 045496 barcode that Nintendo of America uses. This seems to only be a distributing process relating to physical copies of a game or games that are download only (Wolfenstein) that also happened to sell download codes within a physical case. SNK Heroines and Ultra Street Fighter II: The Final Challengers also have the same NOA barcode. The website Djdisjcnw cited (https://ppltoast.wordpress.com/2020/02/27/a-look-into-nintendos-barcodes/) also mentions other barcodes for Nintendo of Japan, Nintendo of Australia, and Nintendo of Europe. I don't know how all games with this code can be verified, and just how convoluted it may be to look at the barcode for each specific area of release, as a game with the Nintendo bar code in America may not have the same with its counterpart in Japan. AlphaRex1 (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Publishing and distribution are different things. We consider distribution in general to not be a noteworthy detail, to the point that many years ago we removed it from Infobox video game entirely and most leads. We really need to limit this list to things Nintendo acted as a publisher on, rather than simply handling distribution. -- ferret (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, there's just too many games that have to be considered for distribution and it really isn't that significant to consider a Nintendo product. This would mess up every other list as well besides just Switch games. AlphaRex1 (talk) 00:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: So what should we do about the three Bethesda and the three Mojang games that were only just distributed? NinStar123 (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doom and Minecraft Games 

message: PLEASE stop adding "distributed" games into the list without sourcing; the only "distributed" games that have reliable proof are various Bethesda, Mojang and Grasshopper Manufacture games; if u have any enquiries ask at my talk page.
STB (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced information of games 

message: Huge sections of this article are being sourced to GameFAQs. GameFAQs is an unreliable WP:USERG source, per WP:VG/S. Anything sourced to GameFAQs needs a new source or removed. -- ferret (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the same for MobyGames, Retroplace, Satellablog and nindb. Dozens of other unreliable sources are in use. I'm close to considering sending this article to WP:AFD for WP:TNT. -- ferret (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it should be sent to AFD - that would throw the baby out with the bathwater. I do think it  should be split so there is no single master list. "Lists of Nintendo products" would be good to move this to, while removing any lists from the article itself. Note that this is the same argument many other users made in the 2018 AfD for this page and it still is the best option.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is in five years no one has made any movement or suitable proposal of how to structure that, and instead the list continues to barreled down the path that started the last AFD. Even I've said List of Lists, but in the end, exactly what lists would be on it? List of Wii games for example is not exclusively Nintendo products. -- ferret (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: List of Nintendo toys and List of Nintendo arcade games could conceivably be split. Still, you have a point and it might be necessary to go for a far more limited scope here, simply moving this particular list to toys and splitting off arcade games as its own thing.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: With an ambiguous set of collections, what I'd probably suggest is retargeting this back to Nintendo and a suitable section that has a paragraph of what Nintendo has done from a product-category type view, and links to other viable lists. Edit: Which mostly already exists at Nintendo#Products.  -- ferret (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  GameFAQs / MobyGames / IndieDB 

message: Source 1 on this article is this page. Looking at the classic toys, it is used for nearly every toy there, and yet has many problems. 1) The toys in the article completely differ from the ones in the source, the source has less toys and not all the toys in that source are even used in the article. 2) The source is inaccurate with dates, i.e. Nearly every source that isn't that page lists the "Eleconga" as released in 1972, while the source list it as 1970 or the "Ultra Scope" being stated as released in 1969, however boxes show a copyright date of 1971. The source is clearly misused and inaccurate, but removing it will require finding new sources for all of classic toys which is a bit of an undertaking. 173.54.23.191 (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither NINDB nor the ebay box image source are reliable for Wikipedia purposes. I noted the above in #GameFAQs / MobyGames / IndieDB that this article suffers from terrible unreliable sourcing. -- ferret (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing the first source, especially for classic toys