Talk:Nintendo/Archive 3

message: Since the first scribe that wrote the Nintendo DS section decided to throw random facts out there unsourced, I took the liberty of updating and sourcing the facts in this section, including:
*Nintendo DS has sold over 16.73 million units.
*It is neck-and-neck with the Sony PSP, shipping over 17 million units.
*This isn't counting the DS Lite, selling over 2 million units in Japan alone.
This is my first time editing in Wikipedia so far, just tell me if I screwed anything up.  John D'Adamo 14:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You did good. Though to be fair, the Nintendo's DS sales numbers did include DS Lite, which was at 580 thousand units as of the end of the 2006 fiscal year. The 2 million units figure is for a different point in time. In less than two-and-a-half months, the number of DS Lites have multiplied significantly. Dancter 15:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, and to sign your posts, just append four tildes at the end (~~~~). The software substitutes the relevant information. Dancter 15:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Question.  Is Associated Press, Tokyo branch a semi-reliable source? I'm contemplating whether to add Iwata's claim that two million DS Lites will be produced each month, backed up with the Tokyo AP source.  John D'Adamo 14:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that most of news outlets worldwide rely heavily on the Associated Press, I'd assume that it is reliable enough. But I don't know much about the Tokyo branch, so I don't actually know. I'd add it, anyway. It can always be modified or removed if there are any problems. Dancter 15:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added some new figures I picked up off a Japanese website that first published the figures and then I added another source, GameScience, with the English translation for good measure.  Then, I added the blurb about Iwata's claim he'd sell 2 million units per month backed up with the AP source.  John D'Adamo 15:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems fine to me. One note, though: content on newswire pages such as on Reuters or Yahoo! Finance tends to disappear after a while, but as long as it's monitored, it's usually easy to find the information reproduced more permanently somewhere else when that happens. Dancter 16:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know whether this has been changed, but one must look beyond the numbers alone to compare sales of the DS and PSP; as the original bulleted list in this comment section (along with every other source I can remember) shows, Nintendo tends to release the number of units SOLD, while Sony tends to release the number of units SHIPPED.  These numbers are incompatible, because the number of DS units SHIPPED is higher than the given number (which tells how many are sold), just as the number of PSP units SOLD is lower than the given number (which tells how many are shipped).  Depending on which set is used, either the DS number is higher than that listed, or the PSP number is lower than that listed (one or the other). -67.163.21.39 22:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Added sources for Nintendo DS section

message: I have granted the GA status though there are still a few things to do :
* Currently, Nintendo's main competitors on the gaming front are Sony and Microsoft. shouldn't be used as there is no time in an encyclopedia.
* upcoming Wii. same as above.
* Decide what type of referencing to do, the prefered one is inline citations.
* Too many lists.
* Splitting should be envisioned.
* :Image:Virtual Boy kit.jpg, :Image:Nintendo.svg should give their fair use rationale.
Lincher 17:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA status

message: If you take a look at where HAL Labs are mentioned in this article, and at HAL's own article,you'll see that it is owned by Nintendo and is a first party (in the same way that Retro Studios is a 1st party). Therefore, I feel I must ask, how come in the 'Developers Box Thing at the botton of the page it is listed as a second party?--NP Chilla 18:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The party status of HAL Labaoratory is frequently changed, as it seems there is conflicting sources on the matter. I imagine if more editors knew how to do it, it would also be changed in the Nintendo developers box, as well. As far as I can tell, though, it seems that despite the very close relationship between the two companies, HAL is not a full subsidiary of Nintendo. Dancter 20:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now THAT is complicated. But correct me if I'm wrong, please - Retro Studios shares a very similar relationship to the Big N, as does Game Freak, and they are both counted as first party titles (ie, Pokémon is counted as a 1st party franchise); so how come these are both 1st parties, but HAL is not?--NP Chilla 14:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Retro Studios is first-party because it's wholly owned by Nintendo. As for Game Freak, I don't know. --Evice 00:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Pokémon franchise is managed by The Pokémon Company, which is a joint venture between Nintendo, Creatures Inc., and GAME FREAK. It seems WARPSTAR is a similar arrangement between Nintendo and HAL to manage the Kirby franchise. Dancter 00:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HAL Labs: isn't this a first-party? 

message: I wonder where can I find a section or article relating to Nintendo that has this lawsuit. I know it first started in 'The Inquirer', but soon it spread to more reliable sources like IGN and GameSpot. So if there is no mention of this incident please help record it in Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.239.84.199 (talk • contribs) .
:Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. -- ReyBrujo 04:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anascape lawsuit 

message: I'm going to go out on a limb and assume the founded date of 1889 should really be 1989. I'm going to change it. Throw 08:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I'm an idiot.Throw 08:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This isn't the first time someone has seen the date and thought it was incorrect. I'm going to put a little comment blurb in the code there, just in case someone repeats this in the future. Ex-Nintendo Employee 08:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call. It'll save another poor, well-intensioned soul some undue embarrassment. Thanks.Throw 18:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can understand where the confusion comes from, because I'd imagine there are plenty of people who don't know Nintnendo's original business was manufacturing playing cards, which have been around way longer than video games. -67.163.21.39 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Founded date wrong