Talk:Nvidia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nvidia article.
Article policies
Companies Portal
This article is within the scope of Companies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of companies. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Tone

This article could be written a little bit more objective, especially considering the recent situation in the GPU market, where in fact ATI leads the pack.

This article reads way too much like it was written for a tech website catering to the Mountain-Dew-drinking, l33t h4xor crowd.

ati leads the pack? hardly.

[edit] Question

Big question number two: WTF is this? "Xbox Inter Pentiam IIII Celeroon", "Playstation 5 (Reality Synthesiser RSX)" Geeez, guy from Poland must teach english-language encyclopedia site users how to write ;)

  • The fact that you say ATI leads the pack results in you loosing any grounds of saying this does not have a NPOV. The 6800's and x800's are neck and neck, and the 6600gt dominates over the x700pro. I dont know about the other cards. Xxpor 02:24, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed

'BIG QUESTION' - in the first couple of sentences, it cites nvidia as the manfacturer for chips in the xbox306, but later in the article i reffers to ati. . . someting to take a look at for someone in the field, support chips vs. gpu? --68.105.140.47 19:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't say anything about the Xbox 360. The reference to the "current" Xbox was good until like yesterday or so. I'll change it though.Tommstein 16:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The NV40 series is the first 3d card offering using customized chip designs for each level of performance. This is in contrast to previous generations, which either kept an identical design and lowered the number of pipelines and core speed, or reused older technology for lower-end cards. -- 4.243.112.180

Needs factual backup: [H]ard|OCP says "All of the parts from value to enthusiast will be based off of the same NV40 technology. The only difference down the line will be performance cuts in the way of core frequency, memory frequency, and the number of pipelines to reduce transistor counts in the lower end parts. All you need to keep in mind is that from top to bottom the whole GeForce 6 series cards will have the "same" architecture with the same major features," in direct opposition [1]. --ChrisErbach 01:28, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

NVIDIA Corp. is almost always known as NVIDIA, hence the name (see naming conventions). ed g2s • talk 03:52, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I thought NVIDIA was correctly spelt nVidia. If this is not so then quite a few Wikipedia pages need changing because I have seen the lowercase spelling on many pages. Yelhsa 14:36, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • As did I. Xxpor 02:25, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • ST-Microelectronics - (Riva128 and Riva128ZX) Um wasn't it SGS-Thomson? Actually SGS-Thomson is now owned or absorbed into ST/Microelectronics, but a google search shows SGS-Thomson as the foundry for Riva128.
  • Under the section "Market Leadership: GeForce", the article claims that nVidia purchased 3Dfx. This is patently untrue. Only the IP rights and the rights to make offers to the employees nVidia wanted to hire were purchased. I believe the stock still exists in some form (though no longer listed).

[edit] Do we really need a separate article for every nVidia card ever made ?

Based upon the latest updates, it seems to me thats where some people are trying to take this. Surely a page per series of cards made by nVidia is enough. I think we're about there already, personally. Articles are supposed to be informative summaries. Maybe some of the new guys wished they had the chance to contribute, not sure. *Update* if anyone wants to do something useful, you could fill out the nForce 3 page. Try and fill the gaps - thats my approach. Timharwoodx 06:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If the Nforce 4 X16 is not a seperate bullet, shouldnt the NF3 mobile just be a part of the NF3 section? its the same core logic!

[edit] what is the proper way to pronounce nvidia?

anyone know?

I've always heard it spoken as "en-vid-ee-uh" (with a fairly flat accent or slight accent on the "en").
Atlant 16:49, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Haven't you ever seen their commercial? Play BF2 :D. How atlant writes it is what is in their commerical. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 15:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't know the actual pronunciation either...
nvidia doesn't have a lot of commercial in Taiwan..
is it really "en-vid-ee-uh"??--Davince 07:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Why would we lie? :-) (I have slight business contacts with NVIDIA so I'm pretty confident that I'm correct.)
Atlant 13:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Has nobody here ever seen the "the way it's meant to be played" video that most games begin with? A voice clearly pronounces the name.

[edit] Mispellings

This page has numerous mispellings, referring to the 3dfx 'Vodoo' multiple times, as well as claiming things that are inaccurate and do not match with the 3dfx article.

This is Wikipedia, so you know what to do: be bold! Atlant 01:15, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Origin of name

In the Latin lists of the Seven Deadly Sins, envy is referred to as invidia. Same in italian.

And we all know that in English, the saying is that someone is "green with envy". Nifty. --71.198.8.214 08:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

In Spanish, Nvidia is pronounced *exactly* like "envidia", our word for "envy". 201.235.51.21 03:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Yup, it's invidia in Latin, regardless of the list of deadly sins. Regarding "In Spanish...," not exactly like that. A spanish I is like an English long E, so in spanish, en vee dee uhh. Look up the great vowel shift.

In spite of this speculation, which I myself was convinced of for some time, representatives of NVIDIA have repeatedly told me that the only reasoning behind the name was that the founders wanted to preserve the "NV" from the name of a graphics driver they worked on at SUN. The "-idea" part is probably to sound like "video". I'm not sure what the details of the true story are, but the current absolute statements regarding the "envidia" theory should be sourced or stricken. Sadangel 12:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NVIDIA GeForce 5200

I got this Graphics Card, Nvidia GeForce 5200, and I wanna know if the graphics is alrght, i don't really want Great Graphics Card, like new Nvidia cards, cuz i can't afford So I wanna know hat games run on it

"Thanks:P" >x<ino 03:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Bad news - you just got the slowest graphics card since NVIDIA's MX series. The FX5200 suffers from really slow GPU speed amungst other things. Sorry. If you can afford a GeForce 6600 even if only the 128MB version it will blow that FX5200 out of the universe.

What are you talking about suker!?

I have one of the best series of all time...if you actually do yuor searches in Wiki/Nvidia. And you will find a list of the GeForce FX series, between there timeline, you will see FX 5200 is better than the rest of the GeForce Series. Bascially mine is series 5, it even as an extra function!
>x<ino 16:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I had nVidia GeForce FX5200 (128MB VRAM), but I was not satisfied with it, and i bought FX5500, but I am dissapointed with it too (is's actually the same, but with 256MB VRAM). Now I'm thinking yo buy nVidia's GeForce 7300GT or 7600GT, because I need pixel shader 3.0 support to play Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell Double Agent.

Riste Ristevski 18:05, 26 May 2007 (GMT+1)

Interesting you guys should mention this card. I had the FX 5200, FX 5500, and FX 5600. The 5600 and 5500 BOTH would ALWAYS have a random infinite loop errors, causing a freeze then automatic restart, but the 5200 never did. After some reading up, I found out that Nvidia has done absolutely nothing to fix them, but motherboard manufacturers disabled something in their BIOS that fixes it (apparently my motherboard didn't get that update).--Can Not (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mess?

WTF ist that mess down there in the "Various Nvidia Card Details" department? Somebody gotta clean that up... -83.236.20.241 10:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Dunno what you are talking about...more details!

>x<ino 16:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Resolved. A discussion was conducted and a consensus was arrived at, the outcome of which was to maintain status quo, to Keep current page at NVIDIA. speaks rohith. 20:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Why has this page since been moved to Nvidia when the consensus and resolution was to keep it at NVIDIA (which is inline with NVIDIA's website)? -Andreas Toth (talk) 03:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

See the discussion at Talk:Nvidia#Requested Move 2 below. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This should be NVidia instead of NVIDIA to conform to the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Due to technical limitations, the initial letter must be capitalizad even though it should be lowercase. -- Reinyday, 00:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

no! NVIDIA, should even be spelled

"Nvidia" or "nVIDIA"

>x<ino
  • I agree that it should be "nVIDIA" and "LEGO" should be "LEGO", but according to an irritating Wikipedia consensus, only the first letter gets capitalized, hence "Lego". However, it is also standard to respect the first letter being lowercase (as in "iPod") so it must be "nVidia" to conform to the guidelines. -- Reinyday, 05:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Oppose The first letter isn't lowercase. You are basing that on the logo, but logos can be stylized in various ways that don't neccesarily correspond to their text counterpart (e.g. the computer manufacturer Dell has a logo that is stylized to use uppercase, but they refer to themselves as Dell). NVIDIA consistently refers to themselves as NVIDIA in text, with nVidia nowhere to be found on their website. If you want to make a case to move it based on the guideline that imposes "standard" English over a company wishes, then the case should be made for Nvidia. Either that, or it should be left at NVIDIA. News sources seem to prefer Nvidia or NVIDIA, with nVidia being least common.[2] --jiy (talk) 03:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
      • You are right. I was basing my change on the logo. It cannot be left as NVIDIA; this violates the Wikipedia Manual of Style. -- Reinyday, 18:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support rename to "nVidia", even though initial lowercase "n" will be capitalized. David Kernow 11:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Recently, NVIDIA has changed the logo and with it also the way its name have to be written. It was changed from nVidia to NVIDIA.ILorbb 11:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


"--jiy" is tottally right! That name "nVidia" is based on the logo, which the logo is spelled/designed: nVIDIA. Putting an article on full caps lock, isn't really right!

Anyway, I greatly support nVidia
>x<ino 14:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't get how you think I'm totally right yet support nVidia (unless you meant Nvidia and made a typo?). My point was that the all-caps NVIDIA is clearly the official, "legal" name of the company, as evidenced by all documents on their website. The only reason that lowecasing of the n (whether nVidia or nVIDIA) is somewhat popular and percieved to be correct stems from the interpretation of the logo. But logos aren't neccesarily what we should be basing this on -- we don't write about Dell in all caps and try to find an obscure unicode character that resembles the tilted E.--jiy (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, because using a full caps for an article name isn't really official! "NVIDIA"
  • Using a small caps for the first letter and rest of the letters full caps is just stupido! "nVIDIA". But this name is just the logo's design
  • Using small caps for the first and rest of the letters, but leaving the second letter caps is just plan crazy! "nVidia"


So I say, the name should be Nvidia. Prouncing the name is spelled "nVidia". While spelling it without prouncing the name is "Nvidia". But spelling it just like the logo is "nVIDIA".
So the real damn name is "Nvidia"

>x<ino 17:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose The preferred clear-text capitalization scheme according to the company itself is clearly NVIDIA as evidenced by numerous press-releases and self-references on their website. I trust the company's PR department has a better grasp of their own desires than does anyone else. Rename the article to Nvidia if need be for the sake of conforming to wikipedia style guidelines, but for no other reason -- and if so done, the article should state that Nvidia was chosen over NVIDIA because of technical limitations.

--Jorge1000xl 15:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

  • This should not have been moved Nightstallion. If we look only at votes, including the nominator and closer, then it's a tie. I don't see how WP:MOS justifies moving to nVidia, either, specifically Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). It says "Trademarks which officially begin with a lowercase letter raise several problems because they break the normal capitalization rules of English that trademarks..." NVIDIA is not a trademark which officially begins with a lowercase letter. Their corporate website clearly indicates that the official trademark is fully capitalized. WP:MOS also says "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment." Perhaps that's a line of reasoning people want to follow. But we should not be applying it to an unofficial name, nVIDIA derived from the logo to reach nVidia. If it is to be applied, it should be applied to the official name NVIDIA, which yields Nvidia. If people want to argue for Nvidia I think it should be made a seperate vote. -- jiy (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I found it out!

This name is correct!, this article's name doesn't need renaming! If you actually visit NVIDIA'S site, you will see, that the name NIVIDIA, is in full caps lock when writing in text, but nVIDIA is written for the logo!
  March 30, 2006
NVIDIA Professional Solutions Capture Mobile Workstation Graphics Leadership 

NVIDIA GeForce 7300 LE Available Now!
Bringing GeForce 7 Series GPUs to the Mainstream.

Now does this answer all your cheap questions and debate!?

The name NVIDIA is ok. It doesn't need renaming:P
>x<ino 15:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose

I'm more accustomed to NVIDIA or nVIDIA. Wikipedia's style guide, albeit a dominant force, made cause incorrect assumptions and references for readers, whom should know that the correct, corporately accepted name is NVIDIA, or nVIDIa, as seen in its official logo. Gunbolt 00:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose

While the title of their site does indeed say "nVidia", numerous items of text on the pages use "NVIDIA" contantly. - hitman012 00:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose

NVIDIA Corp. had recently undergone a rebranding exercise during which their logo was changed to the new one as listed on this page and this was to emphasize the writing of "NVIDIA" in all caps. You see, according to the new logo, it's NVIDIA. rohith 06:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conversation conclusion
The result of the discussion was to keep page at NVIDIA

Main arguments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


I notice that at 17:31, 25 September 2007, this page was, in fact, moved to NVidia, even though this discussion would seem to indicate otherwise. Was the move the culmination of some other process? ENeville 21:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. Anything that has got to do with moving an article should have been discussed HERE, first. And there had been one, the outcome of which was to keep. speaks rohith. 20:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ULI

The article originally suggested Nvidia acquired ULI for US$1 million. This figure surprised me, I appreciate ULI wasn't the biggest of companies but I didn't think it possible they were that cheap, and indeed this webpage suggests the cost was US$52 million. [3] However to avoid further incorrect info, I just removed the figure until someone can do more research to get the correct figure. Nil Einne 21:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

According to filings with the SEC, they paid USD 53.1 million: "On February 20, 2006, we completed our acquisition of ULi Electronics, Inc. ... The aggregate purchase price ... of approximately $53.1 million, including $0.9 million of direct acquisition costs."[4]

[edit] Reads like an advert

Deleted the tag. How can you write a history of NVIDIA without talking about its products? The article is clearly critical of NVIDA products, such as the FX line, and therefore is not a ra, ra, cheerleading advert, but an attempt to write a factual overview of the company product history. If someone feels strongly about this, please post specific sentences as examples to the talk page. Timharwoodx 23:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I just made the headings less colloquial. Having written most of the text, I must say the headings were not actually mine. Timharwoodx 23:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that the information is great -- but the style should be changed to be more formal and dispassionate. A few examples:
  • "The NV2 incident remains something of a dark corporate secret for NVIDIA."
Is this true? How can this be verified?
  • "NVIDIA's CEO Jen-Hsun Huang realized at this point after two failed products, something had to change if the company was to survive."
Consider rephrasing, such as "[Something] changed under CEO Jen-Hsun's directive.Citation"
  • "...it looked to many industry observers at the time as if the company was dead in the water."
Is there a less colloquial, more precise way to say this?
Again, the text is informative, and not an advert per se, but the passage as a whole seems to be written more for a historical corporate brochure than an encyclopedic entry. I hope you won't mind if I add back the tag in the meantime. Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 19:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, try and find information about NV2 on the NVIDIA website. Its something they've never wanted to talk about. I've tried to think of other ways to say it, but frankly, it ends up dull, and even looses precision. NV2 is indeed a dark corporate secret for NVIDIA. Perfectly true comment. Nails the reality of it.

You seem to confuse cause and effect. Events do not happen at companies, unless directors order them to happen. NVIDIA changed its business model, because management recognized they had been doing things wrong. The prime mover in the process, the causality, is in the minds of senior management. I see it as logical for narrative to adopt a chronological approach to description.

As for dead in the water, yeah, I’ll agree that is lapsing into colloquial. Slightly too pictorial.

I still don't know what you mean by 'historical corporate brochure.’ I sense the problem you have is that the text is surprisingly readable, and therefore MUST be unsound in some fashion. I happen to think text can be accurate, informative, and readable, all at the same time. Again, how does one discuss NVDIIA without reference to the products? Must I remove reference to the GeForce products? How would that make any sense?

When I wrote it, actually, I thought the NVIDIA fans would flame me for being honest about how awful the FX lines was (the FX series designed by 3DFX engineers folks, btw, a cold shower for anyone who thinks 3DFX any sort of real future).

Now I'll leave the tag up, but if no-one adds to this thread, and agrees with you, I see it as a debated, and lost point, frankly. Timharwoodx 22:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it reads quite well, but the style does not match Wikipedia's standards. I encourage you to read Wikipedia:Verifiability. (I will try to make a few improvements myself.) Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 22:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have made changes based on your comments. Yes, I have read verifiability, thanks. In fact, I've quoted it at other people MANY TIMES. One of my favorite examples, is that there is no verifiable evidence that Osama bin Laden carried out the 9/11 attacks, as the FBI openly admit. It’s a baseless conspiracy theory advocated by George Bush. So although the tv news says one thing, verifiability guidelines actually require the WIKI to be more cautious.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&hl=en

I enjoy writing. If people want footnotes, well, go ahead. Its a question of time. I tend to the view folks can always footnote a text later. If what you’re now saying the text needs better footnoting, I would not disagree. But there was no narrative text when I started, so we're clearly better off.

I also think the GoForce is presently a HUGE HOLE in the write up. Mobile phones are a big market, and both ATI and NVIDIA articles are more or less silent on it. I added a small amount of content to the ATI page on the matter, but its not been followed up by anyone. Timharwoodx 23:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

"If what you’re now saying the text needs better footnoting, I would not disagree."
This is exactly what I am saying, for every statement that a reader could reasonably question. In this case, I suspect that some of the statements cannot be footnoted at all for want of a source that does not exist. That does not mean that it is untrue, but that it is non-verifiable and thus not eligible for inclusion. (For a related discussion, see this email posting.) The reason for me being picky is that statements such as "dark corporate secret" paint the company in a negative light.
"I tend to the view folks can always footnote a text later."
Right, but not for information that is questionable to begin with.
"But there was no narrative text when I started, so we're clearly better off."
On the whole, of course—thank you for your contributions. I am just trying to push us one step further. Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 00:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is the OEM info really needed?

I don't think listing Original Equipment Manufacturers is something that is needed here. I would say delete that section entirely and expand on the fact that they only design and sell the graphics processor, they do not build the actual graphics boards. What are some other thoughts?

YES, the OEM info is needed. unlike other outfits, nvidia doesn't just make cards and slip some chips on the side to OEMS. It makes chips ONLY, and other companies make the cards. I actually found this article because I was confused about this fact. The names of the companies which produce "nvidia" graphics cards are very important to anyone wanting to know about nvidia graphics cards.

ALSO, I'm removing the the "long list" warning tag, since 1) the list isn't very long, and 2) logicaly, it's a set of discrete links, not a paragraph of prose.Sys Hax 06:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Four-pixel pipeline"

I'm not an expert, but it strikes me as more likely that the card has 4 pipelines that each output one pixel per cycle, rather than pipelines that output 4 pixels as the hyphen implies. SenorBeef 21:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] nVidia Vista drivers

Just wondering, why was it removed? There are no full Vista drivers lately, and there has been many problems running it. nVidia advertised that running their graphics cards under Windows Vista would give not only better performance, but better visual quality. I think it is rather significant, and very relevant. What parts about it werent' neutral?

68.150.223.221 08:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC) dashboardy (68.150.223.221)

Generic WP:NPOV violations; Instead of stating the facts, the section tried to assess the situations, stating "extremely unacceptable issues", etc. The section wasn't removed though, I'm not sure where you got that idea. -- intgr 14:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
changed "extremely unacceptable issues" to references with BSOD instances as example. also gave other sides of issue (WHQL certified windows drivers have been resolution to NVIDIA drivers). any problems now?

68.150.223.221 21:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)dashboardy

Same as last user, logged in... I looked at the page after and could not see 5.7 Windows Vista driver issues. Section is now present. Please review the section, discuss any further changes required. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dashboardy (talk • contribs) 21:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC).
Sounds better now. -- intgr 22:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, this section appears to be gone again, and I for one think it is definitely relevant, so long as it is written without bias Tolstoy143 - "Quos vult perdere dementat" 22:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shortcomings of the GeForce FX section

Some person had rewritten this section some time back, incorporating content from subsequent sections chronicling the later GeForces. The protion of this section towards the end feels like POV'd. I've removed some obvious POV, but I guess the section can be rewritten from an objective and factual point of view. rohith 18:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Build by NVIDIA (BBN) and others

I can't seem to find it in the article.

The BBN was widely used for nForce 680i and nForce 680i LT and some nForce 590, why it's not mentioned anywhere in the article, and where is the market history of desktop chipset sections?

BTW, RSX in PS3 and Xbox GPU are not PC chipsets!! --202.71.240.18 12:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Key People, Company info, etc

Anyone have info to contribute. Obviously Jensen isn't the ONLY key person...

[edit] SLI and GeForce 6

SLI came along with the Geforce 6 series, not the 7. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.148.198.158 (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Old Drivers?

What is the point of the "old drivers" link in the infobox? It's quite handy, but that is not what wikipedia is for. All that is required is the official homepage. vLaDsINgEr 15:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consoles with ATI chips

Is the part about Microsoft and Nintendo using ATI chips instead of NVIDIA chips in their consoles really necessary? 195.23.216.233 15:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The part about Microsoft and Nintendo using ATI chip instead of NVIDIA chips in the consoles really necessary 195.23.216.233 No, nVidia is the best chip ever opinion

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Y Done Neıl ☎ 13:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move 2

NVIDIA → Nvidia — Pretty clear cut in my opinion. The current name violates MOS:TM as there is no reason to have the name in all capitals just because the company wants people to write it that way. There is precedence (like Time instead of TIME, PlayStation 3 instead of PLAYSTATION 3. We are not supposed to use odd capitalizations just because the trademark owner encourages it. —TJ Spyke 03:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support. I might have allowed nVidia, a variation on the accepted eBay/iPod capitalisation trick, but reading the previous move request, the company no longer follows this style. So "Nvidia" is now the correct page. I bet there are many wikilinks to NVIDIA, and they should be corrected also. Llamasharmafarmerdrama (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Evidence is that outside the company "Nvidia" is preferred [5]. The company's own preference should be ignored, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) Whydontyoucallme dantheman (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - The MoS serves to provide consistency within Wikipedia, and an all-caps non-abbreviated article title is against the consistency and the MoS. Neier (talk) 12:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support as above. Tigeron (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think we need to settle this as part of a much broader issue with WP:NC: there are many, many other articles on companies that do not follow the current MOS: WESCO International, NOVA Chemicals, DISH Network Corporation, PACCAR, CIGNA, ENSCO International are only a few of the many examples. I think the company articles are a different animal than the product articles of TIME and PLAYSTATION (where I agree all caps is ridiculous). It comes down to this: in the company naming issue, in modifying WP:NC to allow caps in this specific case we would be following the practice of others who write about the companies, like cnn, the New York Times, etc., etc. I have opened a thread here; can all interested parties weigh in there before we move this page? Thanks. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    • See WP:WAX. Hell, I started this move request after someone was complaining about this article being wrong (the person was trying to move Galaxy Technologies to GALAXY Technologies). TJ Spyke 05:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, per nom. Though I would not be opposed to "nVidia" per the eBay/iPod passage of WP:MOSTM, pronunciation, semantic distinction and consistency with the nForce brand. - Cyrus XIII (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose The MoS may say editors should decap regardless of trademark holder preference, but I feel it's elitist for editors to impose their personal preferences instead of the trademark holders preferences. ++Lar: t/c 23:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    How are the preferences personal? Would you support using the star in Macy*s? The exclamation point in P!nk? Should we refrain from capitalizing adidas and thirtysomething and craigslist? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    Yes to all of those, if that is how the trademark holders want them done. When evaluating one preference against another (which is really what this is... some editors who happened to put together our MoS and their collective preferences, versus the owners of the marks in question), I give far greater weight to the owner than to random editors, even if you could muster 10000 of them all unanimously speaking. That's just me and my preference for how things ought to be done regarding commercial things, of course, but I feel the MoS is deeply flawed in this area and has been from the get go. Hence, since we're surveying, what the MoS says matters not a whit to me since it's, in my personal view, wrong. :) I expect that my view won't carry the day but I do want it on record. You'll of course get my willing consensus to go along with whatever we come out with, but you won't have my personal agreement that the correct answer was arrived at. ++Lar: t/c 01:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    Oh don't worry. I've got no dog in this race, and I'm not going to whack you with a "rule" or something. I wonder whether you're familiar with the justification behind WP:MOSTM, which isn't, as far as I understand it, based on preferences at all, but on WP:NOT and WP:NPOV. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    I've read it and I think the attempted application of NPOV in that instance is flawed... because it inherently IS a preference matter. Taking the line of "we're going to do it as we like, regardless of the trademark holder's view or wish" is inherently non neutral, it's "anti trademark owner", and no amount of tortured reasoning can convince me differently. I rather think the analogy is more along the lines of BLP's and marginal notability cases w.r.t. deletes, actually... in marginal cases, we honor the living person's wishes, absent a compelling reason not to. Well here, every single case of how to capitalise or punctuate a trademark really *is* marginal if you think about it (in the grand scheme of things it is not going to stylistically kill us one way or the other to capitalize things one way or the other), and our default position is "screw the property owner, (because, remember... a trademark is a kind of property, it has economic value and can be bought and sold) we're going to do as we like, they can go hang, nasty dirty money grubbers, who cares about them, we have a Free Project to do here, who cares about property rights or diluting someone else's valuable property by misuing it... screw them.". If I controlled a big corporation, I guess that would make me more/less (pick one) likely to be kindly disposed to WMF's projects? And that would be in general a: good/bad (pick one) thing? So no, I'm indeed very familiar with the (in my view) exceedingly flawed justification behind WP:MOSTM... ++Lar: t/c 02:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    Yeah, I really don't think NPOV is a very good fit there either. I think it's more a case of WP:NOT, in particular Wikipedia is not a soapbox for advertising, and certain aspects of formatting essentially constitute advertising. To take an extreme case, would you support the rendering FedEx? I think if we were to use such a formatting, it would make it look as if we were advertising for them, which is what I see as being at stake. I mean, when the New York Times refers to LEGOS as "Legos", do they care whether they're diluting someone's brand name, and not disposing a company well towards them? Should they? Should we? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The guideline is very clear that we choose from among the various formats that already exist in the language. We don't somehow decide in an arbitrary way. In fact, your apparent concession that the guideline calls for this move seems to indicate that the rule is straightforward and you recognize that it applies in this case. No major publication recognizes that trademark owners have some "right" to compel others to use their wacky formats. It would not serve our readers to allow, as GTBacchus says, advertising principles to invade our encyclopedia. Croctotheface (talk) 03:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Er, no, we're not choosing arbitrary ways... don't fool yourself there, please. We're deliberately choosing the way the owner of the property does not want, as a snub to them, and as a way to devalue their property. (and potentially, if taken far enough, as a way to get lawsuits... I believe LEGO, for example, has sued organizations over the use of the term "LEGOS" rather than LEGO elements if their warnings were unheeded. I may be mistaken about that but it is not unheard of for a trademark owner to sue, in fact trademark law requires a vigorous defense of trademarks by the holders). The MOS/TM guideline is wrong in this, but it will prevail anyway... not because it's a good idea to thumb one's nose this way, but because there are people that give the appearance that they like thumbing their noses at property owners for no good reason at all, that's about all I'm conceding in this. ++Lar: t/c 04:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The notion that we seek to "devalue their property" is just incorrect as a matter of fact. We do not have a policy of doing the opposite of what a trademark owner wishes. Our guideline says that we do not accord a formatting more weight because it is preferred by the trademark owner. We format nearly all trademarks the way the owner wants because nearly all trademarks are formatted in ways that accord with standard English. The trademark infringement/dilution claim is also without merit; if we are somehow guilty, then basically every major publication is likewise guilty. A large number of them use Lego and Nvidia. Croctotheface (talk) 06:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, in actual practice we tend to follow such publications as the New York Times. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Which, I beleive, is better equipped to defend against lawsuits than we are. ++Lar: t/c 11:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you genuinely think that decapitalizing trademarks leaves us open to legal challenges? If so, that sounds like an important thing to bring up at WP:MOSTM. If that's not the case, then we should find that out for sure. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I think there is some small chance of it, yes. Not a big chance. Probably marginal to nil for most trademark holders. The chance is larger for nouning adjectives though than for miscapitalization. Most trademark holders will be more likely to be upset about usages like "Legos are cool" (vs. "Lego blocks are cool" which retains LEGO as an adjective) as that is much more dilutive of the trademark and therefore more strongly needs to be defended, than they are about LEGO vs Lego. But if you can avoid a small chance easily, does it matter exactly how small the chance is? No. Prudent risk management says if a particular risk is costless to avoid, avoid it. This avoidance is essentially costless. ++Lar: t/c 16:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Trademark dilution generally applies to cases where someone uses a trademarked word or phrase to refer to something other than what it is designed to represent. If we started calling our encyclopedia "Legopedia" just because we thought it sounded cool, then we would likely be liable for diluting the trademark. Using the brand name Lego or Tivo or Xerox to refer to generic equivalents is the same idea: it dilutes the power of the mark because it is being used to refer to other products unrelated to Lego's or Tivo's products. Choosing to use different typography does not at all dilute the mark; it's the same word, just formatted in standard English. Croctotheface (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, Lar, I'm not seeing it. I don't see that we gain anything by using special formatting, and it's not true that there is no cost. The cost is that we make Wikipedia a vehicle for other people's advertising, and that we cross the line from description to promotion. I'd prefer to get a clear answer from legal than to assume that there's any risk that we're avoiding, because the avoidance is not costless. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Nvidia is not an invention and it is in fact prevalent in sources. Our guidelines call for the move. Croctotheface (talk) 03:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per UnitedStatesian. And NVIDIA is the name used by the company, just check their website. Gsingh (talk) 13:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, we shouldn't be held hostage to companies' random typographical whims. Chris Cunningham (talk) 13:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Well that's certainly neutral all right... your personal preferences aren't whims of course, only the property owners. :) ++Lar: t/c 17:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, we are not hostile to the trademark owner; in the vast majority of cases, we use their formatting because it is standard. I could flip your question: why are you hostile to the language? Croctotheface (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[edit] Requested move 3

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved.

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was - retain at Nvidia as per WP:MOSTM - WP:NC (companies) applies to legal status for dab purposes. Keith D (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Nvidia → NVIDIA — This article is about the company, not the trademark. So, it should conform to not MOS:TM, but WP:NC (companies), according to which an article is to be named after the official name of the company. The offical name of the company is NVIDIA Corporation. Hence, the article should be titled simply NVIDIA —, so speaks rohith. 22:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Oppose per the reasons the article was just moved a month ago. Speedy close since the very recent discussion showed the consensus is not to violate MOS just because a company wants us too. TJ Spyke 00:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:MOSTM: "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official'." WP:NC (companies) doesn't say anything about using all caps or official names. — AjaxSmack 00:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
    This article comes under the purview of NC (companies) and not MOS:TM. This fact seems to have been forgotten in the previous RM. As you can see in the first RM, we came to the conclusion that it is indeed WP:NC (companies) that has to be followed here. Please read the argument for this RM before Supporting or Opposing the motion.
    According to NC (companies), the article is to be named after the official name of the company. However, the legal status of the company (in English: Corp., plc, Inc. or LLC; similar statuses in other languages that can come either after or before the company name), is not normally included. --, so speaks rohith. 00:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
    You say, "According to NC (companies), the article is to be named after the official name of the company." Could you please cite the part you are referring to because I don't see it. — AjaxSmack 04:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • NC (companies) talks about including the legal status of the company ("Inc.", "Co.", etc.), and does not mention letting articles violate MOS. The only way NC (C) would apply here would be if the debate was over "Nvidia" or "Nivida, Inc.". Odd capitalizations still fall under MOS and MOSTM. TJ Spyke 17:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose and close as per User:TJ Spyke. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies) does not support this and even has a ==see also== link to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) which is very clear -- unless it is "N.V.I.D.I.A." there is no reason to use all capitals. Llamasharmafarmerdrama (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - nowhere does it say that other sections of the MoS are superceded by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies), or that the fact that the company name is shortened should give free rein for anyone to ignore the other well-established naming conventions. Neier (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • oppose. previous move in January 2008 seems very sensible. Mcmullen writes (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per clear guidelines in WP:MOSTM since this is not an acronym. --DAJF (talk) 06:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Within the English-language Wikipedia we use English-language conventions. The Commercial Jargon Wikipedia can do things differently if desired. -- Pedant17 (talk) 07:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The commonest way to write it is nVidia - but we couldn't do that even if we wanted to - so no matter what, we get it wrong. Nvidia is as good as any compromise. SteveBaker (talk) 02:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Any additional comments:

-- The company's official name as seen in the California Secretary of State's Business Portal, the company's NASDAQ scrip quote, its filing with the SEC and its very own Press Releases, so speaks rohith. 22:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment I thought they were styled nVidia 70.55.84.89 (talk) 04:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    They are - (at least in some of their publicity material) but due to technical restrictions, Wikipedia forces the first letter of an article title to uppercase no matter what. So even if it were desired to do this - we cannot. SteveBaker (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] The way it's meant to be pronounced?

Does anyone know a publicly available description, citable as a reliable source, of the correct way to pronounce this company's name? (That is, something in print — and preferably something from Nvidia itself — not simply people's impressions from listening to audio recordings of the name being spoken.)

I've listened to the audio part of the Nvidia animated logo distributed as part of the Civilization IV: Beyond the Sword game, and I am convinced that the female voice is saying "inn-VID-ee-uh" (i.e., the first two vowels are identical). However, other people listening to the same audio might possibly think they are hearing "en-VID-ee-uh" (especially listeners whose regional dialects exhibit the pin-pen merger — something which is not the case in my own speech). And some people may be sure that the first vowel must be /ɛ/, not /ɪ/, because their aural perception is biased by the fact that the name is written with an initial letter N.

If there's a FAQ section on Nvidia's web site where this question is answered in print, I haven't managed to find it. And if we simply can't find any reliable source other than our descriptions of what we hear, we might (unfortunately) need to simply omit any mention at all of the proper pronunciation in the article — though I would push for that only as a last resort. Richwales (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How about mentioning the open source issue?

The fact that NVidia drivers aren't open source annoys a lot of people. Perhaps it should be mentioned??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.182.91.94 (talk) 16:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Network Interface Chipsets

NVIDIA is an important manufacturer of network interface chipsets. Yet the word "network" doesn't even appear in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.18.43.225 (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)