Category talk:Nintendo people

Move to Category:Nintendo associates

Support

1. YES. "Nintendo people" is almost comically vague. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 21:39, 4 June 2017 (EDT)
2. Support. I don't see why not, since asocciates sounds much more profesional. -- Beep (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2017 (EDT)
3. Support because formalities are nice. BaconMaster 21:43, 4 June 2017 (EDT)
4. Support the name sounds so weird as-is ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 21:47, 4 June 2017 (EDT)

Oppose

1. "Associates" implies things on the same tier as Nintendo itself, so I would assume companies from the phrase "Nintendo associates" and go in expecting to see Game Freak, Monolith Soft, etc. What's not clear or unprofessional about "people"? Miles (talk) 21:49, 4 June 2017 (EDT)

   "People" is what you say when you are unsure of what else to call a group. Also:

   Associate, noun

   1. a partner or colleague in business or at work.

      "he arranged for a close associate to take control of the institute"

      synonyms: partner, colleague, coworker, workmate, comrade, ally, affiliate, confederate

   2. a person with limited or subordinate membership in an organization.

   Serpent King 21:54, 4 June 2017 (EDT)

2. I think this is a solution in search of a problem. "People" is clear and to the point; "associate" is nebulous and non-obvious. Toomai Glittershine The Glow 22:14, 4 June 2017 (EDT)

Neutral

1. Aidan, the Wandering Dragon Warrior 21:47, 4 June 2017 (EDT)

Comments

I know I'm a new user, but I wanted to point out that Wikipedia also uses the category "Nintendo people". If it's good for Wikipedia, why wouldn't it be okay here? Queen Junko (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2017 (EDT)

Because we're not Wikipedia? Aidan, the Wandering Dragon Warrior 21:47, 4 June 2017 (EDT)

Whyyy do you guys ALWAYS point out what Wikipedia is doing? We don't mimic them. We are a completely different wiki with a completely different scope and a completely different userbase set to accomplish a completely different goal. There is no reason that we should follow suit with them. Serpent King 21:49, 4 June 2017 (EDT)

I never said that we should strictly mimic them, I was just wondering why it would be unacceptable to follow their example in this case. I don't appreciate being spoken down to nor being lumped in with previous users just because I asked a question. Queen Junko (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2017 (EDT)

I'm sorry about that but "If it's good for Wikipedia, why wouldn't it be okay here? " is a question that gets asked over and over again, and the answer is always the same. Serpent King 22:13, 4 June 2017 (EDT)

It's true that we shouldn't do something just because another wiki does, but it's also true that we should consider why they do it that way instead of just ignoring it. And in this case, I think it's for simplicity and ease of understanding. Toomai Glittershine The Incomperable 22:19, 4 June 2017 (EDT)

Since when did simplicity and understanding matter more than professionalism? Also simply viewing the category and seeing the articles within it should clear up any misconceptions right there and then, should it not? I am having difficulty seeing the difference between "people" and "associates" besides the fact that "associates" implies occupation and, in general, is just a more professional conduct. Serpent King 22:23, 4 June 2017 (EDT)