Category talk:Nintendo people: Difference between revisions
From SmashWiki, the Super Smash Bros. wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(→Oppose) |
m (→Oppose) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
===Oppose=== | ===Oppose=== | ||
#"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"? [[User:Miles of SmashWiki|<font color="dodgerblue"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">'''Miles''']] <font color="silver">([[User talk:Miles of SmashWiki|<font color="silver">talk]])</font></font></span></font> 21:49, 4 June 2017 (EDT) | |||
===Neutral=== | ===Neutral=== | ||
Revision as of 20:49, June 4, 2017
Move to Category:Nintendo associates
Support
- YES. "Nintendo people" is almost comically vague.
Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 21:39, 4 June 2017 (EDT) - Support. I don't see why not, since asocciates sounds much more profesional. --
Beep (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2017 (EDT) - Support because formalities are nice. BaconMaster
21:43, 4 June 2017 (EDT) - Support the name sounds so weird as-is ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 21:47, 4 June 2017 (EDT)
Oppose
- "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)
Neutral
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)
