text:
Wet nurse

A wet nurse is a woman who breastfeeds and cares for another's child. Wet nurses are employed if the mother dies, or if she is unable or chooses not to nurse the child herself. Wet-nursed children may be known as "milk-siblings", and in some societies, the families are linked by a special relationship of milk kinship. Wet-nursing existed in societies around the world until the invention of reliable formula milk in the 20th century. The practice has made a small comeback in the 21st century.

Reasons
A wet nurse can help when a mother is unable or unwilling to breastfeed her baby. Before the development of infant formula in the 20th century, wet-nursing could save a baby's life.

There are many reasons why a mother is unable to produce sufficient breast milk, or in some cases to lactate at all. For example, she may have a chronic or acute illness, and either the illness itself, or the treatment for it, reduces or stops her milk. This absence of lactation may be temporary or permanent.

There was a greater need for wet nurses when the rates of infant abandonment and maternal death, during and shortly after childbirth, were high. There was a concurrent availability of lactating women whose own babies had died.

Some women chose not to breastfeed for social reasons. For upper-class women, breastfeeding was considered unfashionable, in the sense that it not only prevented them from being able to wear the fashionable clothing of their time, but it was also thought to ruin their figures. Hiring a wet nurse was less expensive than having to hire someone else to help run the family business and/or take care of the family household duties in their place. Some women chose to hire wet nurses purely to escape from the confining and time-consuming chore of breastfeeding.

Eliciting milk

A woman can only act as a wet nurse if she is lactating (producing milk). It was once believed that a wet nurse must have recently undergone childbirth in order to lactate. This is not necessarily the case, as regular breast stimulation can elicit lactation via a neural reflex of prolactin production and secretion. Some women have been able to establish lactation using a breast pump, in order to feed an infant.

Gabrielle Palmer, author of The Politics of Breastfeeding, states:

Historical and cultural practices

Wet nursing is an ancient practice, common to many societies. It has been linked to social class, where monarchies, the aristocracy, nobility, or upper classes had their children wet-nursed for the benefit of the child's health, and sometimes in the hope of becoming pregnant again quickly. Exclusive breastfeeding inhibits ovulation in some women (lactational amenorrhea). Poor women, especially those who suffered the stigma of giving birth to an illegitimate child, sometimes had to give their baby up temporarily to a wet nurse, or permanently to another family. The woman herself might in turn become wet nurse to a wealthier family, while using part of her wages to pay her own child's wet nurse. From Roman times and into the present day, philosophers and thinkers alike have held the view that the important emotional bond between mother and child is threatened by the presence of a wet nurse.

In pre-modern times, it was incorrectly believed that wet nurses could pass on personality traits to infants, such as acquired characteristics.

Mythology
Many cultures feature stories, historical or mythological, involving superhuman, supernatural, human, and in some instances, animal wet nurses.

The Bible refers to Deborah, a nurse to Rebekah, wife of Isaac and mother of Jacob (Israel) and Esau, who appears to have lived as a member of the household all her days. (Genesis 35:8.) Midrashic commentaries on the Torah hold that the Egyptian princess Bithiah (Pharaoh's wife Asiya in the Islamic Hadith and Qur'an) attempted to wet-nurse Moses, but he would take only his biological mother's milk.

In Greek mythology, Eurycleia is the wet nurse of Odysseus. In Roman mythology, Caieta was the wet nurse of Aeneas. In Burmese mythology, Myaukhpet Shinma is the nat (spirit) representation of the wet nurse of King Tabinshwehti. In Hawaiian mythology, Nuakea is a beneficent goddess of lactation; her name became the title for a royal wet nurse, according to David Malo.

Ancient Rome

In ancient Rome, well-to-do households would have had wet nurses (Latin nutrices, singular nutrix) among their slaves and freedwomen, but some Roman women were wet nurses by profession, and the Digest of Roman law even refers to a wage dispute for wet-nursing services (nutricia). The landmark known as the Columna Lactaria ("Milk Column") may have been a place where wet nurses could be hired. It was considered admirable for upperclass women to breastfeed their own children, but unusual and old-fashioned in the Imperial era. Even women of the working classes or slaves might have their babies nursed, and the Roman-era Greek gynecologist Soranus offers detailed advice on how to choose a wet nurse. Inscriptions such as religious dedications and epitaphs indicate that a nutrix would be proud of her profession. One even records a nutritor lactaneus, a male "milk nurse" who presumably used a bottle. Greek nurses were preferred, and the Romans believed that a baby who had a Greek nutrix could imbibe the language and grow up speaking Greek as fluently as Latin.

The importance of the wet nurse to ancient Roman culture is indicated by the founding myth of Romulus and Remus, who were abandoned as infants but nursed by the she-wolf, as portrayed in the famous Capitoline Wolf bronze sculpture. The goddess Rumina was invoked among other birth and child development deities to promote the flow of breast milk.

India
By the 1500s, a wealthy mother who did not use a wet nurse was worthy of remark in India. The child was not "put out" of the household; rather, the wet nurse was included within it. The imperial wet nurses of the Mughal court were given honours in the Turco-Mongol tradition.

United Kingdom

Wet nursing used to be commonplace in the United Kingdom. Working-class women both provided and received wet-nursing services.

Taking care of babies was a well-paid, respectable, and popular job for many working-class women. In the 18th century, a woman would earn more money as a wet nurse than an average man could as a labourer. Up until the 19th century, most wet-nursed infants were sent far from their families to live with their new caregiver for up to the first three years of their life. As many as 80% of wet-nursed babies who lived like this died during infancy.

During the Victorian era, women took in babies for money and nursed them themselves or fed them with whatever was cheapest. This was known as baby-farming; poor care sometimes resulted in high infant death rates. The wet nurse at this period was most likely a single woman who previously had given birth to an illegitimate child. There were two types of wet nurses by this time: those on poor relief, who struggled to provide sufficiently for themselves or their charges, and the professionals, who were well paid and respected.

Upper-class women tended to hire wet nurses to work within their own homes, as part of a large household of servants.

Wet nurses also worked at foundling hospitals, establishments for abandoned children. Their own children would likely be sent away, normally brought up by the bottle rather than being breastfed. Valerie Fildes, author of Breasts, Bottle and Babies: A History of Infant Feeding, argues that "In effect, wealthy parents frequently 'bought' the life of their infant for the life of another."

Wet nursing decreased in popularity during the mid-19th century, as medical journalists wrote about its previously undocumented dangers. Fildes argued that "Britain has been lumped together with the rest of Europe in any discussion of the qualities, terms of employment and conditions of the wet nurse, and particularly the abuses of which she was supposedly guilty." C. H. F. Routh, a medical journalist writing in the late 1850s, listed the evils of wet nursing, such as the abandonment of the wet nurses' own children, higher infant mortality, and an increased physical and moral risk to a nursed child. While this argument was not founded in any sort of proof, the emotional arguments of medical researchers, coupled with the protests of other critics, slowly increased public knowledge; the practice declined, replaced by maternal breastfeeding and bottle-feeding.

France

Wet-nursing was reported in France in the time of Louis XIV, the mid-17th century. By the 18th century, approximately 90% of infants were wet-nursed, mostly sent away to live with their wet nurses. In Paris, only 1,000 of the 21,000 babies born in 1780 were nursed by their own mothers. The high demand for wet nurses coincided with the low wages and high rent prices of this era, which forced many women to have to work soon after childbirth. This meant that many mothers had to send their infants away to be breastfed and cared for by wet nurses even poorer than themselves. With the high demand for wet nurses, the price to hire one increased as the standard of care decreased. This led to many infant deaths. In response, rather than nursing their own children, upper-class women turned to hiring wet nurses to come live with them instead. In entering into their employer's home to care for their charges, these wet nurses had to leave their own infants to be nursed and cared for by women far worse off than themselves, and who likely lived at a relatively far distance away.

The Bureau of Wet Nurses was created in Paris in 1769 to serve two main purposes: it supplied parents with wet nurses, as well as helping lessen the neglect of babies by controlling monthly salary payments. In order to become a wet nurse, women had to meet a few qualifications, including physical fitness and good moral character; they were often judged on their age, their health, the number of children they had, as well as their breast shape, breast size, breast texture, nipple shape, and nipple size, since all these aspects were believed to affect the quality of a woman's milk. In 1874, the French government introduced a law named after Théophile Roussel, which "mandated that every infant placed with a paid guardian outside the parents' home be registered with the state so that the French government is able to monitor how many children are placed with wet nurses and how many wet-nursed children have died".

Wet nurses were hired to work in hospitals to nurse babies who were premature, ill, or abandoned. During the 18th and 19th centuries, congenital syphilis was a common cause of infant mortality. The Vaugirard hospital in Paris began to use mercury as a treatment; however, it could not be safely administered to infants. In 1780, it began the process of giving mercury to wet nurses, who could then transmit the treatment in their milk to infected infants.

The practice of wet-nursing was still widespread during World War I, according to the American Red Cross. Working-class women would leave their babies with wet nurses so they could get jobs in factories.

United States

British colonists brought the practice of wet-nursing with them to North America. Since the arrangement of sending infants away to live with wet nurses was the cause of so many infant deaths, by the 19th century, Americans adopted the practice of having wet nurses live with the employers in order to nurse and care for their charges. This practice had the effect of increasing the death rate for wet nurses' own babies. Many employers would have only kept a wet nurse for a few months at a time since it was believed that the quality of a woman's breast milk would lessen over time.

Child-minding, different from wet-nursing, was also commonly an additional job on top of child rearing and nursery tending. Employed wet nurses were typically paid low wages and worked long hours. Workers in the 1900s demanded work contracts to provide stable wages. Wet nursing work was rarely consistent, wet nurses were stereotypically poor ladies from rural areas who offered their services for fees.

Since there were no official records kept pertaining to wet nurses or wet-nursed babies, historians lack the knowledge of precisely how many infants were wet-nursed and for how long, whether they lived at home or elsewhere, and how many lived or died. The best source of evidence is found in the "help wanted" ads of newspapers, through complaints about wet nurses in magazines, and through medical journals that acted as employment agencies.

Slavery
In the Southern United States before the Civil War, it was common practice for enslaved black women to be forced to be wet nurses to their owners' children. In some instances, the enslaved child and the white child would be raised together in their younger years. (Sometimes both babies would be fathered by the same man, the slave-owner; see Children of the plantation.) Visual representations of wet-nursing practices in enslaved communities are most prevalent in representations of the Mammy archetype caricature. Images such as the one in this section represent both a historically accurate practice of enslaved black women wet-nursing their owner's white children, as well as sometimes an exaggerated racist caricaturization of a stereotype of a "Mammy" character.

Egypt
From the mid-1800s to the mid-1900s, and especially after World War I, thousands of Slovene peasant women migrated via Trieste to the cosmopolitan port city of Alexandria. There, these aleksandrinke undertook various sorts of domestic work for elite Levantine households—"the highly mobile upper strata of Ottoman millets, Jewish, Maronites, Melkite active in international commerce". Enough served as wet nurses that this occupation became almost synonymous with Slovene domestic workers, which resulted in some stigma back home. Married women could leave Alexandria and return to their home village, where they would conceive and bear a child and leave the infant to the care of relatives or a hired wet nurse, while they returned to Egypt to seek new employment and a new charge to nurse.

This constitutes the origin of the archetype of the aleksandrinka as a wet nurse, which came to overpower any other representation of the aleksandrinstvo, despite the fact that empirical evidence demonstrates that only a tiny fraction of alekandrinke at any time worked as wet nurses. The majority of aleksandrinke were working as nannies or chamber maids, they were not breastfeeding the children they were taking care of. The emphasis on lactaction, which marks the hypersexualization of the aleksandrinstvo, was part of the rhetorical stigma surrounding this phenomenon in Slovenia.

Relationships

Sometimes, the infant was placed in the home of the wet nurse for several months, as was the case for Jane Austen and her siblings. The Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 91, a receipt from AD 187, attests to the ancient nature of this practice. Sometimes, the wet nurse came to live with the infant's family, filling a position between the monthly nurse (for the immediate post-partum period) and the nanny.

In some societies, the wet nurse was simply hired as any other employee. In others, however, she had a special relationship with the family, which could incur kinship rights. In Vietnamese family structure, for example, the wet nurse is known as Nhũ mẫu, mẫu meaning "mother". Islam has a highly codified system of milk kinship known as rada. George III of the United Kingdom, born two months premature, had a wet nurse whom he so valued all his life, that her daughter was appointed laundress to the Royal Household, "a sinecure place of great emolument".

Mothers who nurse each other's babies are engaging in a reciprocal act known as cross-nursing or co-nursing.

Current attitudes in Western countries
In contemporary affluent Western societies such as the United States, the act of nursing a baby other than one's own often provokes cultural discomfort. When a mother is unable to nurse her own infant, an acceptable mediated substitute is expressed milk (or especially colostrum), which is donated to milk banks, analogous to blood banks, and processed there by being screened, pasteurized, and usually frozen. Infant formula is also widely available, which its makers claim can be a reliable source of infant nutrition when prepared properly. Dr. Rhonda Shaw notes that Western objections to wet nurses are cultural:

For some Americans, the subject of wet-nursing is becoming increasingly open for discussion. During a UNICEF goodwill tour to Sierra Leone in 2008, American Mexican actress Salma Hayek decided to breastfeed a local infant in front of the accompanying film crew. The sick one-week-old baby had been born the same day but a year later than Hayek's daughter, who had not yet been weaned. The actress later discussed on camera an anecdote of her Mexican great-grandmother spontaneously breastfeeding a hungry baby in a village.

Current situation elsewhere
Wet nurses are still common in many developing countries, although the practice poses a risk of infections, such as HIV. In China, Indonesia, and the Philippines, a wet nurse may be employed in addition to a nanny as a mark of aristocracy, wealth, and high status. Following the 2008 Chinese milk scandal, in which contaminated infant formula poisoned thousands of babies, the salaries of wet nurses there increased dramatically.

Notable wet nurses
Royal wet nurses are more likely than most to reach the historical record.

In Ancient Egypt, Maia was the wet nurse of King Tutankhamun. Sitre In, the nurse of Hatshepsut, was not a member of the royal family but received the honour of a burial in the royal necropolis in the Valley of the Kings, in tomb KV60. Her coffin has the inscription wr šdt nfrw nswt In, meaning Great Royal Wet Nurse In.

In Asia, Lady Kasuga was the wet nurse of the third Tokugawa shōgun, Iemitsu. Lu Lingxuan was a lady in waiting who served as wet nurse to the emperor Gao Wei. She became exceedingly powerful during his reign and was often criticized by historians for her corruption and treachery. Chinese emperors honoured the Nurse empress dowager. Wet nurses were also common during the Mughal period, with almost every Mughal prince having one. Some prominent ones are Maham Anga for Akbar and Dai Anga for Shah Jahan. Shin Myo Myat was the mother of King Bayinnaung of the Toungoo dynasty of Burma (Myanmar), and the wet nurse of King Tabinshwehti. The last Emperor of China, Puyi, described Mrs. Wang Chiao as being the only person who was able to control him: "from my infancy until the time I grew up, only my wet nurse, because of her simple language, was able to make me grasp the idea that I was like other people."

In Europe, Hodierna of St Albans was the mother of Alexander Neckam and wet nurse of Richard I of England, and Mrs. Pack was a wet nurse to William, Duke of Gloucester (1689–1700). Geneviève Poitrine was a wet nurse of the Dauphin of France, Louis Joseph, son of King Louis XVI of France and Queen Marie Antoinette. Poitrine was accused of transmitting tuberculosis to the Dauphin and triggering his infant death when aged seven, although since very few pre-adolescent children die from TB, this accusation may have been the result of a misdiagnosis.

Some non-royal wet nurses have also been written about. Halimah bint Abi Dhuayb was the foster mother and wet nurse of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. Petronella Muns was, with her employer, the first Western woman to visit Japan. Naomi Baumslag, author of Milk, Money and Madness, described the legendary capacity of Judith Waterford: "In 1831, on her 81st birthday, she could still produce breast milk. In her prime she unfailingly produced two quarts (four pints or 1.9 litres) of breast milk a day."

title: Wet nurse


text:
Gédéon Tallemant des Réaux

Gédéon Tallemant, Sieur des Réaux (7 November 1619 – 6 November 1692) was a French writer known for his Historiettes, a collection of short biographies.

Biography
Born at La Rochelle, he belonged to a wealthy middle-class Huguenot family; the name des Réaux was derived from a small property he purchased in 1650. When he was about eighteen, he was sent to Italy with his brother François, abbé Tallemant. On his return to Paris, Tallemant took his degrees in civil law and Canon law, and his father obtained for him the position of conseiller au parlement. Disliking his profession, he decided to seek an alternative income by marriage with his cousin Elisabeth de Rambouillet. His half-brother had married a d'Angennes, and this connection secured for Tallemant an introduction to the Hôtel de Rambouillet.

Madame de Rambouillet was no admirer of King Louis XIII, and she gratified Tallemant's curiosity with stories of the reigns of Henry IV and Louis XIII that were of real historical value. The society of the Hôtel de Rambouillet opened a field for his acute and somewhat malicious observation. In the Historiettes he gives finished portraits of Vincent Voiture, Jean Louis Guez de Balzac, Malherbe, Jean Chapelain, Valentin Conrart and many others; Blaise Pascal and Jean de la Fontaine appear in his work; and he chronicles the scandals of which Ninon de l'Enclos and Angélique Paulet were centres.

The Historiettes are invaluable for the literary history of the time. It has been said that the malicious intention of Tallemant's work may be partly attributed to his bourgeois extraction and that the slights he received are avenged in his pages, but independent testimony has established the substantial correctness of his statements. In 1685 he converted to Catholicism. It seems that the change was not entirely disinterested, for Tallemant, who had suffered considerable pecuniary losses, soon after received a pension of 2,000 livres. He died in Paris.

Works
Des Réaux was a poet and contributed to the Guirlande de Julie, but it is by his Historiettes that he is remembered. The work remained in manuscript until it was edited in 1834-6 by MM. de Châteaugiron, Jules Taschereau and Louis Monmerqué, with a notice on Tallemant by Monmerqué. A third edition (6 vols. 1872) contains a notice by Paulin Paris. Tallemant had begun Mémoires pour la régence d'Anne d'Autriche, but the manuscript has not been found.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Gédéon Tallemant des Réaux


text:
Talk:Nvidia

First sentence
On February 6, 2009, a Wikipedian changed the opening sentence from "The multinational corporation Nvidia (nasdaq: NVDA, ), specializes in the manufacture of ... " to read: "Nvidia (nasdaq: NVDA, ) is a multinational corporation specializing in the manufacture of ...". The previous version gave context and established notability in accordance with the guideline WP:LEAD. It provided a definition of the subject-matter and made the subject-matter the grammatical subject of the opening sentence -- once again complying with WP:LEAD. Why then abandon this well-structured sentence for a bland and plodding version which has doubled the number of verbs and given undue prominence to Nvidia's corporate identity at the expense of the reason for its notability: its products? -- Can we establish, on good and clear policy grounds, a consensus on an optimal introductory sentence? -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

 * I personally agree with the change. The previous construction is too passive, and makes it questionable as to whether the subject is Nvidia or the manufacturing of graphics hardware. Here is the guideline: As a general rule, the first appearance of the page title should be as early as possible in the first sentence. (WP:BOLDTITLE) Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

 * The version reading: "The multinational corporation Nvidia ... specializes in the manufacture of ... " has nothing passive about it: it expresses the subject and uses that subject actively. No question arises as to whether the the article deals with he subject "Nvidia" or with specialization or even manufacturing -- the heading and the bolding take care of that. We can satisfy the edicts of WP:BOLDTITLE on the positioning of the page-title by using a construction such as "Nvidia, a multinational corporation, specializes in the manufacture of ..." -- Leaving aside all personal opinions, I ask once again: can we establish, firmly based on the grounds of Wikipedia policies, a  consensus on an optimal introductory sentence? -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Several weeks later ... for want of a response, I propose to enhance the opening sentence to use the "Nvidia, a  multinational corporation, specializes in the manufacture of ..." format. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Missing GeForce FX in chronology
Though somewhat amusing to see this, I want to raise the issue that between the "Market leadership" section that ends with the GF4 and the "GeForce 6 and later" section, there is no mention whatsoever of the FX (5000) series, which was one of nvidia's low points. Previous discussions above seem to indicate that there was content about the FX at one point, but this may have been removed. Please keep in mind that articles need to be NPOV and you cannot cherry-pick facts to include or exclude. The company's successes and failures both need to appear in the article. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A section was indeed removed:. This has been restored and edited a bit for NPOV. While it does need more sources, so does the rest of the history. Either remove the whole thing or leave this subsection in place. Otherwise, the article is biased because it only includes positive highlights from the company's product history. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Proper pronunciation of NVIDIA??
I'll ask one more time, very, very seriously: Can anyone cite a reliable written source which definitively says how the NVIDIA muckamucks intend for "NVIDIA" to be pronounced? For some time now, the article said /ɪnˈvɪ.di.ə/, but someone changed it just now to say /ɛnˈvɪ.di.ə/.

As I said several months ago (see Talk:Nvidia above), I am, personally, absolutely convinced beyond any doubt that NVIDIA's own pronunciation of its name (based on the audio of the animated logo at the start of a recent game) is /ɪnˈvɪ.di.ə/ ("inn-VID-ee-uh", with the first two vowels being identical). I know some other people seem equally absolutely convinced beyond any doubt that the correct pronunciation is /ɛnˈvɪ.di.ə/ ("en-VID-ee-uh"), and the only explanation I can come up with for this discrepancy is that those people's speech may have the "pin-pen merger" (please go read that if you aren't familiar with the term) — whereas my own speech does not have the pin-pen merger, and I therefore "hear" the pronunciation differently from some other people. Or, perhaps the person whose voice was recorded for the NVIDIA animated logo happens to speak a regional dialect with the pin-pen merger, and none of the NVIDIA execs have noticed or cared.

My first impulse, just now, was to simply revert the latest edit and put the text back the way it was before (/ɪnˈvɪ.di.ə/). My second impulse was to leave it as it now is, but put a   tag on the pronunciation until someone can supply a reliable source. But if no one can come up with a source, I believe it's better not to give any pronunciation until/unless it can be reliably sourced. Richwales (talk) 07:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

 * I have no opinion on the pronounciation but do wish to give you options on resolving this=
 * If you dont like editors using what they hear on commercials as a source then I suggest you bring this issue to either Reliable Sources/Noticeboard and/or No original research/noticeboard as it seems concensus has been reached here and no one feels the need to discuss this anymore. But make sure if you do either one that you announce that you have done so here and to any editor's talk pages that would reasonably be interested in debating this from a viewpoint other than yours, such as those editors who commented in the two previous talk sections when this was brought up. To bring this to those noticeboards without informing the "other side" would not be seen as acting in good faith. It does seem that concensus has been reached that it is acceptable as the "en" at the front. In the case of a lack of sources concensus trumps the idea of removing unsourced material so I suggest that the article remain with the majority opinion and it is not removed nor changed until a further concensus is reached or reliable sources are found, removing or changing concensus approved material (sourced or otherwise) can be seen and labeled as vandalism. As a side note- written sources are not the only acceptable sources in Wikipedia, a commercial, properly cited, is acceptable. If someone emails the company and recieves an email back with the company's pronounciation that too is acceptable as a source. 148.78.249.33 (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

 * I personally prefer . Bythepowerofscience (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

 * Using advertising from a company is not a reliable source for how something should be pronounced, an example of this is Nissan where in some regions it is pronounced Nis and some say Ne. The marketing material reflects this. Dog777 (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

 * It's "en-VID-eeyah" according to their official logo guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chai T. Rex (talk • contribs) 06:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Moving Nvidia to NVIDIA
do not move Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Nvidia → NVIDIA — Seriously, NVIDIA is the name of this company, not Nvidia --Harbinary (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Manual of Style (trademarks), the clear (if not permanent) consensus and convincing support rationales at Talk:Nvidia, and the Google archive search linked there. --an odd name 19:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. This has been discussed a couple of times before and my opinion stays the same, "NVIDIA" violations MOSTM and shouldn't be used.  TJ   Spyke   20:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No - per MOSTM. --Admrboltz (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose if anything it would be nVidia. 76.66.194.183 (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Protection
Request protection for this page since Baseball Bugs is vandalising it.
 * If you want a page protected, take it to WP:RFPP. If you want to get blocked for personal attacks, keep calling me a vandal. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

American/Taiwanese multinational corporation
How is nVidia American/Taiwanese?? --Aizuku (talk) 07:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Naming Conventions
I've looked through the history of this dispute, and the issue has been decided incorrectly in the past. Reliance on the MOS for trademark purposes is misplaced. As someone previously said, this article is about the company, not the trademark. The company's name, as filed with the Secretary of State, their own press releases and materials, and the overwhelming majority of new articles by professional journalists, is NVIDIA Corporation. It is not Nvidia or nVidia or any other variation. Another voter stated that Wikipedia should not be held to a company's typographical whims. This is also correct. We do not place articles according to the stylings used in the corporate logo (the mark around which a trademark is based)--but we do not alter the case of letters in official company names, either. We do not keep Microsoft at MicroSoft. We do not keep AMD at Amd, or BP at Bp, or WEGA at Wega (the letters don't stand for anything).

Considering the issue as a trademark one is simply incorrect. The matter is of placing the article at the proper place, following the proper spelling of the name. Time Magazine is indeed "Time Magazine"--as the unit of Time, Inc. Initialisms pronounced as a word for companies, where the individual letters no longer mean anything, are still kept in all caps, which is inconsistent with NVIDIA's treatment here. The issue is pretty straightforward: the company's name is fully capitalized, irrespective of trademark (wherein it is actually mixed-case), just like PNY (not Pny) and WESCO (not Wesco). It should be treated as such on Wikipedia. -- Dharadvani (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

 * The Wikipedia Manual of Style defines "tradmarks" as including "words and short phrases used by organizations to identify themselves and their products and services". The usage of the term "trademark" by 'NVIDIA® Corporation ("NVIDIA")' matches this: the company claims a plethora of trademarks, with varying upper and lower case, including: "NVIDIA, the NVIDIA logo, [...] nView" (but not "nVidia" or "nVIDIA") - see the "Trademark Information" legal notice at http://www.nvidia.com/object/legal_info.html retrieved on 2010-05-30. All in all. we can regard "NVIDIA" as a trademark - thus the Wikipedia rules on tradmarks apply, and we should generally use the standard English form "Nvidia" per previous discussion on this talk-page (most recently summarized at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nvidia#Moving_Nvidia_to_NVIDIA ). - Comparisons with initialisms like "IBM" hold less weight when dealing with a semi-initialism: we don't pronounce the name as "en-vee-eye-dee-eye-eh". Compare "pronounced not spelled" initialisms used as brands and as corporate names by (for example) Esso (for SO = Standard Oil), Sun Microsystems (from Stanford University Network), Nabisco (from National Biscuit Company), Sony (branded "SONY"), Fiat (not F.I.A.T.), etc. - Pedant17 (talk) 06:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

 * The name of a company is not a trademark. A trademark is a mark used in identification on stylized marks--the printed images on products, packaging, letterhead and so forth, registered by the USPTO and having nothing to do with the formal name of the corporation.  The name of the company is NVIDIA Corporation, as can be verified by filings with the Secretary of State.  That has nothing to do with registered trademarks, which are handled by the USPTO.  Your examples, including Esso and Nabisco, are not pertinent, because the corporate names were formally changed.  Again, see WESCO--an article properly rendering the company name on Wikipedia, and WEGA--another such article, pronounced as a word, and abbreviating nothing.  Sony, moreover, is not registered as a corporation under the name SONY, so that example fails as well.  The logo typeface is not at issue; the only issue is the company's actual name, and since no one outside of Wikipedia uses "Nvidia", noting that technology journals properly render the name as NVIDIA within their articles, it is inaccurate to do so here.

The page is not located at the company's name, and it is both wrong and confusing. Pronunciation of a name has nothing to do with how it is written, and altering the case of a proper name because of some misguided use on inapplicable trademark styles is indefensible. --Dharadvani (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Agreed. As a former NVIDIA employee, seeing this page title has always driven me nuts. "NVIDIA" was even used internally, and all internal marketing (and non-marketing) guidance declared it the proper capitalization of the name. --67.185.151.148 (talk) 04:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would have to oppose renaming at this time, citing MOS:TM bullet number 3:
 * Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official":
 * avoid: REALTOR®, TIME, KISS
 * instead, use: Realtor, Time, Kiss

 * See the older discussion link Pedant17 provided as well as another recent example here. Airplaneman   ✈  04:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Except you're applying English text formatting to non-English text. The Realtor, Time, and Kiss examples are all English words outside their trademarked context. Why does every use of NVIDIA then use the all-cap form in the article? Why is EVGA Corporation not "Evga Corporation"? Why does that very page link to the NVIDIA page in all caps? Or why is it ATI Technologies instead of Ati? Why is the iPod article display it's title with a lower 'i'? Why eBay? I can find more places on Wikipedia where the cited rule is broken rather than followed. For the three examples in the MOS you cite, the articles themselves follow a standard-English captalization throughout the article. It seems for this article we're all admitting that NVIDIA is the proper form, except for the title.

 * I think Dharadvani makes the best point. Nobody uses Nvidia. Not the press, not NVIDIA themselves, nobody. Except for the Wikipedia article's title. (not even the article content!) Why is that so special? To me Ignore_all_rules is a far better policy to be following here. Also, I think there's an interesting argument made earlier in this page questioning whether the trademark rule should even apply since not only is NVIDIA a trademarked form, but it's also the legal form of the name in the view of the California state government, in terms of official filings to the SEC, etc, etc. Would removing the little (R) after the name mean it no longer falls under MOS:TM? --67.185.151.148 (talk) 04:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

 * A brief Google News search for "nvidia" turns up about 90% of press sources referring to it as "Nvidia". ATI and EVGA are written as a series of capital letters (by Wikipedia and by the press) because they're pronounced as a series of capital letters; Nvidia is not. For iPods and eBay, Wikipedia is just echoing the style guide adopted by the reliable sources it uses; the first-letter-lowercase guideline at WP:MOS overrules the "general rule" about normal English capitalisation.
 * If you think policy should be changed, I'd suggest raising it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (trademarks). --McGeddon (talk) 12:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

 * On the current Google News page, 14 of 20 articles identify it as 'NVIDIA'--this varies by source, but all finance-related pages stick with the company's name as formally registered. I don't know how to say it more clearly than this:  a trademark style guide has zero bearing on an entity's formal name.  A trademark is a stylized rendering to identify source--it is often a stylized version of the entity's name, but in no case is that actual name rendered improperly.  eBay and iPod are clear violations of the trademark MOS with no rationale.  The reality is simple:  the company's name is NVIDIA.  Trademark MOS is irrelevant (the typical trademark style is nVIDiA anyway). --Dharadvani (talk) 08:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Open up a requested move if you'd like so more people can weigh in on this matter. You could also bring this issue up at Talk:iPod and Talk:eBay. I've given my opinion and I'm sticking to it. Airplaneman  ✈  01:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Nook Color states [...] (styled "nook color" or "NOOKcolor") [...]. Perhaps a similar approach could be used here. --trevj (talk) 12:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation (again)
See earlier discussions of whether NVIDIA is pronounced /ɪnˈvɪ.di.ə/ or /ɛnˈvɪ.di.ə/. Until someone can produce a high-quality, unambiguous source to settle this issue, I believe the pronunciation needs to be marked with a fact tag. Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

 * It's "en-VID-eeyah" according to their official logo guidelines. Chai T. Rex (talk) 06:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

www.nvidiasettlement.com
Apparently there is a multi-million class action settlement, not mentioned on wikipedia. Link:

69.203.111.61 (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

^ If I could bump this somehow I would, I believe this lawsuit is (was) relevant and should be included in this article. Dninyo (talk) 05:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Why I am not able to open the Nvidia web site?
By mistake I bought a Dell Vostro 3500 which it's graphic card is Geforce 310M. I am trying to upgrade my graphic card to open and use Google earth but something don't let me download a driver from Nvidia.com or Dell.com.

What's wrong to using Google Earth? any suggestion?46.100.50.123 (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

NVidia Online Store??
When has the Store been launched? No info! When has NVidia started selling software + games? Add info!! Naki (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation — YouTube video
Someone added a reference to this YouTube video of the NVidia logo, with a female voice whispering "NVidia", as a source for the claim that it's pronounced /ɛnˈvɪdi.ə/. However, the voice  very  clearly (to me, at least) says /ɪnˈvɪdi.ə/ — the vowels in the first two syllables are obviously identical, and it doesn't make any sense at all to me how anyone can possibly hear this sound sample and think it's saying /ɛnˈvɪdi.ə/. I know it would be WP:OR and unusable as a source here, but I'm strongly tempted to run this woman saying "NVidia" through a spectrum analyser program in order to show all of you that I'm not just hallucinating. The material on the pin-pen merger (which, for what it's worth, is not a characteristic of my own speech) may be relevant here. Rich wales (talk · contribs) 07:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I've raised this issue at Wikipedia talk:IPA for English, on the theory that the people working there have been dealing with lots of different angles of the dialect-vs.-transcription issue (and, therefore, may hopefully have useful thoughts to offer on this question). Rich wales (talk · contribs) 05:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

 * It's "en-VID-eeyah" according to their official logo guidelines. Chai T. Rex (talk) 06:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Full-Article Cleanup
I've skimmed through this talk page, and it seems like the biggest issue here is that there is just too much information for the average user to digest. For this reason, I have decided to embark on a full-blown consolidation edit. It will certainly take multiple edits and revisions, so if anyone is still interested in truly cleaning up this article, I would like to invite you to help me. Alright, time to dive in... Scrat (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Initial restructure and consolidation finished. After getting into the finer points of this article, I've discovered that many of the phrases and wordings used are not fully objective. I have likely removed most of them, but another revision will have to weed the rest out. Also, the long list of dates with very little coherence needs to be rethought. In short, lots of work needs to be done as of yet, but now the article is at least relatively short and easier to digest. Scrat (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I have both found myself and been shown that some of my previous revisions were a bit too harsh. I agree completely with this view, and as a result I have added back in what I hope to be the most important information about NVIDIA. We still need to add a certain flow to this article, as the list of dates is still a bit staggering. If you disagree and think that the article was better the way it was or should be longer, please say so; I don't want to be the only one working on an article for a multi-million dollar corporation without some sort of opinion or guidance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrat9518 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed refresh
I am an NVIDIA employee and would like to propose changes that would correct out-of-date and incorrect information in this entry. I’m familiar with the Wikipedia guidelines, and want to ensure any changes proposed are accepted by the community. Below are a series of suggested updates on which I’d like your feedback and consideration.

I’d like to start with the introduction, which was flagged at the top of the entry as an inadequate summary. Explanations follow in brackets.

NVIDIA (| NASDAQ: NVDA); | /ɪnˈvɪdi.ə/ | in-VID-ee-ə)(1) is an American global technology company based in Santa Clara, California. [ Shortening for clarity. ]

The company invented the | graphics processor unit (GPU) in 1999.(2) [ Highlighting a key milestone in the company’s history. ]

Today, GPUs are used in computers ranging from smartphones to game consoles to engineering workstations. [ Removing redundancy in current entry. Also, NVIDIA is in the process of exiting the chipset business. ]

Researchers and scientists use GPUs for high-performance applications and in supercomputing sites.(3,4) [ Adding key business segments. ]

NVIDIA offers four brands of processors: | GeForce®, | Quadro®, | Tesla™, and | Tegra®. [ Summarizing main product brands. ]

Its competitors include Intel, AMD and Qualcomm. [ More accurately describing the competitive landscape. ]

Founded in 1993 by Jen-Hsun Huang, Chris Malachowsky and Curtis Priem, NVIDIA expanded from its roots in PC graphics into professional graphics and high-performance computing. [ Describing the company’s evolution. ]

Most recently, the company moved into mobile computing, where its | system-on-a-chip powers a number of smartphones and tablets.(5,6,7) [ Adding key business segment. ]

Suggested opening without explanations:

NVIDIA (| NASDAQ: NVDA); | /ɪnˈvɪdi.ə/ | in-VID-ee-ə)(1) is an American global technology company based in Santa Clara, California. The company invented the | graphics processor unit (GPU) in 1999.(2) Today, GPUs are used in computers ranging from smartphones to game consoles to engineering workstations. Researchers and scientists use GPUs for high-performance applications and in supercomputing sites.(3,4) NVIDIA offers four brands of processors: | GeForce®, | Quadro®, | Tesla™, and | Tegra®. Its competitors include Intel, AMD and Qualcomm.

Founded in 1993 by Jen-Hsun Huang, Chris Malachowsky and Curtis Priem, NVIDIA expanded from its roots in PC graphics into professional graphics and high-performance computing. Most recently, the company moved into mobile computing, where its | system-on-a-chip powers a number of smartphones and tablets.(5,6,7)

1.     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-6EFBlybD8

2.	http://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_20020111_5424.html

3.	http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2011/08/04/j-p-morgan-shows-benefits-from-chip-change/?mod=google_news_blog

4.	http://www.top500.org/

5.	http://www.slashgear.com/2011-the-year-of-nvidia-dominating-android-superphones-and-tablets-03168784/

6.	http://www.nvidia.com/object/tegra-supertablets.html

7.	http://www.nvidia.com/object/tegra-superphones.html

Nvidiaemployee (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Refresh begun
A number of the updates in the above "Proposed Refresh" have been made, as well as some additional edits to provide a general overview. I will continue to adjust and expand on this refresh with that goal in mind.

Nvcoms (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Supercomputer resource, with AMD
U.S. Plans Supercomputer Push by BY Shara Tibken in the WSJ October 12, 2011. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Invented the GPU in 1999?
That's an extremely misleading statement. And I don't think it's true. Nvidia may have coined the term, or have defined what requirements have to be fulfilled to call a hardware unit a GPU. I don't know. But it is very easy to show that there were graphics processing hardware units before 1999. Citing Nvidia's own press release as the only proof seems odd to me. --84.177.29.249 (talk) 11:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

100% agree, and I'm going to remove it. Even if it were true (and I think most people would agree that it requires you be very specific about the definition of GPU), it's not properly sourced. --98.254.202.225 (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Marketing?
This article sounds like marketing collateral rather than an encyclopedia entry. Am I the only one noticing this? Kortoso (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

No you are not the only one to think this. But it is an endemic problem here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:75:F61:262:E477:A451:495F:56FC (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Too much emphasis on the lack of open source drivers
Speaking as a Linux user myself, I think there's entirely way too much emphasis on Nvidia's lack of support for open source drivers. The vast majority of users simply aren't going to care about this. If the section is supposed to be about the drivers, then the fact that (binary) Linux drivers exist should be pointed out. Optionally, one could point out that community-driven open source drivers also exist. If the section is supposed to be about Nvidia's support of Linux, the controversy can simply be summed up with a single sentence, such as: "Nvidia provides a binary driver for Linux, along with an obfuscated open source driver, which was the basis for the community-driven nouveau driver." If the section is meant to discuss Nvidia's drivers, in general, then I fail to see why it's so obsessed with this minor Linux controversy (except for the fact that most Wikipedians are probably also open source / Linux advocates). Seriously. I don't think we need to spend so much time on this, when it's only of interest to an extremely vocal minority (even if some of us happen to belong to said minority).

I wouldn't care so much, except that I've noticed a *lot* of people using Wikipedia as their soapbox. Wikipedia isn't the place for that. This is why I often try to avoid editing any articles in which I have a strong personal interest; it clouds your objectivity.

If nobody has any objections, I'll probably go ahead and rewrite the section, highlighting the existence of multiplatform, binary drivers, with community-driven open source drivers available for Linux. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

 * I don't know if its needed. Fact is, AMD's so-proud opensource driver is very inefficient and AMD stated themself that they are providing inadequate amount of effort basing it on current(but not TARGETED) market value. That is, AMD is NOT interested in good opensource driver. Intel, on the other hand, just misses OpenGL4 support and their opendriver offers enormous performance. However the hardware is seriously lacking. So, currently, you have very famous situation - "Open, efficient, good hardware - pick two of three".77.11.56.164 (talk) 10:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Did you ever get around to fixing the section? It seems that there are still a lot of meagerly supported ("communities" when the cite is about one---admittedly influential---person) weasel / OR / POV phrases in that section. I don't understand how such bad reference support gets past a B-review. --Nczempin (talk) 00:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

 * PLEASE, stop using this article as a soap box. Some of the "information' being posted in the damn summary is speculation on the part of a blog. Nvidia has not admitted some of the charges leveled against it, and, even if it had, mentions of its "restrictions" on Linux drivers in a specific x.org driver update do not belong in the main summary. Seriously, how many times do you read an encyclopedia article about Ford and see the first sentence discussing mechanics' opinions regarding the existence of a blinker issue in a 92 Torus? This stuff belongs in a forum flame war, not in a source of general information. --User:69.244.183.29 00:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Missing RIVA series?
Is it just me, or should the RIVA series of video cards be included in this article? Most notably, the RIVA 128 (Nvidia's first commercial success) is missing from the "Major releases and acquisitions" section. Similarly, the "Product families" section is missing the RIVA series (I can see the NV1 being omitted, as it was manufactured and released by Thompson; on the other hand, the RIVA series could've broken Nvidia after the NV1's failure if it had been a flop as well). -- Dok Jones 14:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Documentation
Recently NVIDIA published documentation of Device Control Block (DCB) layout in NVIDIA VBIOS. I cannot update the article due to COI but it might be good to update the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.174.78.148 (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * COI doesn't mean that no one who e. g. works at Nvidia can contribute to articles. If all the statements are factual and supported by reliable secondary sources, no one will bat an eyelid if you happen to work in the Nvidia universe.--Nczempin (talk) 00:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Notability of "Nvidia imposes artificial restrictions" in lead section
An (alleged; it could also be genuinely different people, with coincidental similar behaviour and insistence on keeping this sentence in the lead) IP-hopping editor keeps adding in this bit to the lead section: ''Nvidia drivers impose artificial restrictions, like limiting the number of monitors that can be used at the same time. ''. I've pointed out in my edit summary that since this statement does not appear anywhere in the article, there is no reason to put it in the lead (perhaps other than by someone with an agenda?). I've reverted this and been re-reverted. The IP has not accepted my request to take it to the talk page, so I'm doing it now. Please note the section above, where a related concern has been voiced by an editor. What should be done about this? --Nczempin (talk) 00:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

 * Totally agree. I don't know who is making the edit, but it does NOT belong in the lead section. I almost never edit wiki articles, but I moved that sentence to the free and open source software section. I had wanted to look up some quick Nvidia info (mainly where the headquarters is), and I immediately noticed this sentence and how out of place it was. Not only is it out of place, it's not even very credible. It's a blog post and is purely conjectural. Nvidia has not commented on the issue, and there's no solid evidence Nvidia did this for anything other than technical reasons. --User:69.244.183.29 00:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

At what point can you update processor/card families?
For reasons I wont go into I have had access to information about all the devices that Nvidia is due to release in the first half of 2015. It is critical to me that the Osborne effect doesn't happen, so I sat on the information for the last 6 weeks, however there has been leaks about two cards due out in approx. a weeks time. The information I have, confirms the leaks however as wikipedia is a matter or record I have assumed that I should wait for official announcemnets from Nvidia before releasing the data, am I correct in this? X-mass (talk) 13:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

 * If you want to add such information to Wikipedia, you should cite a reliable source. If there are no sources available, because you are the only one that knows, I think that it would be seen as original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia.
 * TL;DR: if you can't add a source, don't add it. Lonaowna (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Slogan is out-of-date
I don't think "The Way It's Meant to be Played" is their slogan any more. The first google search result for that phrase is a press release from 2002. I don't know what their current slogan is, or if they have one at all. For now I'm just removing that field from the infobox. Jfmantis (talk) 05:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Vibrante
Vibrante is not notable on its own and will serve better when read together with Nvidia's page.   Mr RD    17:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No merge I believe first the article should be expanded rather than merged with the Nvidia page. It is also too specialized and would get lost in the main page. If merging the DrivePX page would be more appropriate. Dbsseven (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge The article is way to small and would probably have more "viewership" on the main Nvidia page.Pastorma (talk) 02:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No merge the article should be expanded, Not merged with the Nvidia page. It provides quick clarification for anyone interested in embedded operating systems, in-vehicle operating systems, etc. It should be treated in a similiar way as the Windows (Microsoft) operating system and the Android (Google) operating System. appropriate. Jjmeza (talk) 09:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No merge Operating systems are independently notable. --Frmorrison (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No merge As per above – BrandonXLF   (t@lk)  01:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Finances
Can someone pls check the figures decimal point writing (dot or colon), in the chapter Finances ? Sums of trillions $ (colon) leave me with quite a little doubt. Or if correct, then maybe switch to write thousand-billions without decimal point ?

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 14-137-338-V19.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Nvidia logo.svg

Omniverse
Please, someone, describe the Omniverse service! --Nashev (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you provide pointers to media articles about the Omniverse? If there are articles, and if they are from media sites, or other reliable sources, then some text can be added to this article. - Dyork (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to switch Deep Learning Section into a Parallel Programming/GPGPU section
Nvidia's contributions to deep learning lie in CUDAs ability to parallelize linear algebra operations. Deep learning in a nut shell is a vast series of Matrix and Vector operations, a normal CPU gets swamped by these where as a GPU has more cores and other optimizations that can run these operations in parallel at a much greater speed. The section as it currently stands confuses that contribution to GPGPU/parallel programming with contributions to deep learning. While these two ideas are clearly closely related they are separate, in much the same way that the Linux Kernel being open source enables cluster computing but one wouldn't call Linux a break through in cluster computing. It's also worth noting that alot of the sources for NVidia's "deep learning" are actually discussing GPUs for ml, and NVidia is neither the only producer or GPUs nor is CUDA the only API for GPGPU, OpenCL for instance is an API which functions in much the same way, so quite a few sources such as the Economist article fall in reference to NVidia. The other advantage to renaming this section to Parallel Programming is that it would also enable cryptocurrency and bitcoin to be added to the article which are what spike the prices of GPUs not ml. 186.222.15.100 (talk) 11:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Promotional Section?
Looking through this article and the product families section really stuck out to me. Is this typically allowed without proper citations? X70Tons (talk) 18:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

 * The issue is that the Nvidia article is of slightly lower interest amongst Wiki users, and there are a couple of ip address users who work in very close cooperation, so close that it could be confused for sockpuppetry who add the promotional stuff and then edit war to keep it in place. But because the article is of lower interest it tends to stick. I agree though that the article has some issues, the entire thing comes off as a bit of an advertisement. I've been chipping away at the Deep Learning section which started off just shy of suggesting that Nvidia invented Hal 9000 to what it is now. 186.222.15.100 (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

 * The part about the 2021 GTC keynote also seems promotional and not noteworthy. Yannn  11  19:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Given that this talkpage section was created by a sockmaster's puppet who liked to question article references' reliability, I wouldn't put my opinions with that guy's expressions.

If you have concerns about the 2021 GTC keynote section, you could refactor it for a less WP:PUFFERY-like iteration.--CrystalLemonade (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

 * Sounds good, did my best to make it less puffery. Yannn  11  22:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Hardware Unboxed Section Inclusion
Does a single bit of YouTube drama really deserve its own section on a company's wiki page? I would be fine with a general controversies section that includes the aforementioned incident but in my opinion it doesn't deserve its own main section in the article. --0x004d (talk) 23:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

 * To clarify, I propose that we merge Nvidia and Nvidia into a single Nvidia section. --0x004d (talk) 02:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Nvidia GTC
A new article Nvidia GTC has been WP:CONSPLIT off from Nvidia. The new article originally was set up to redirect to this article, but someone has tried to flesh it out into its own article. The editor who did so also has declared a COI with respect to the subject matter. This was a bold split made by a new editor who probably didn't fully understand what they were doing and was unaware of WP:PROSPLIT. Perhaps some others more familiar with the subject matter can assess things and see whether a stand-alone article for the conference is warranted. FWIW, most of the content appears to be new (i.e. not copied and pasted from this article) so there might not be any attribtuion issues to deal with. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

ARM Acquisition
On December 2, 2021, the FTC sued to block the $40 billion merger. FTC alleges "vertical deal between chip supplier Nvidia and chip design provider Arm would allow combined firm to stifle competing next-generation technologies." 77.124.54.20 (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

 * Reuters, among others, now reporting that Nvidia's ARM buy-out is being scrapped, owing to regulatory concerns, and that ARM will instead be spun-off by SoftBank. Fallout from the failed acquisition includes a "penalty" payment by Nvidia of $1.25B and apparently the resignation of SoftBank's chief executive. This will need to be addressed in the article, soon, as well as other appropriate places. https://www.reuters.com/business/softbanks-66-bln-sale-arm-nvidia-collapses-ft-2022-02-08/ --HidariMigi (talk) 02:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

 * Would it be alright if I were to take it from the lede and relegate it to the body? To me it seems like a failed acquisition doesn't really need to be in the lede unless there's a greater importance to the deal's falling through that I'm missing. Alcibiades979 (talk) 08:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Pronunciation, Spelling, Branding
For reference: https://images.nvidia.com/aem-dam/en-zz/Solutions/about-us/NVIDIA-Partner-Network-Brand-Guidelines-May-2020.pdf Can we move the page to correctly say NVIDIA not Nvidia?

Most articles on Wikipedia and the vast majority of third-party sources write "Nvidia". It's already made clear in the note at the very beginning of the article that the stylized proper writing of the name is in uppercase.

There is no need for a stylization throughout the whole article.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Bumpgate?
How has one of the biggest scandals to ever happen in the personal computer space not mentioned once anywhere on Wikipedia? I remember Nvidia having underfill and solder bump problems with the G86, G92 and many chipsets, the xbox 360, and laptops from Dell, Apple, and HP?

More coverage here

There was a series of memes of people brutally burning up their 8400, 8600, and 8800 gt's while trying to reflow them in an oven. Nvidia tipped it's hand with a 8-K document they sent to the SEC. They knew they have a problem. There was a class action lawsuit and multi-million dollar settlement? Evil genius fin (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

"NV101@" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NV101@&redirect=no NV101@] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

"Nv1dia" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nv1dia&redirect=no Nv1dia] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Writing Workshop
— Assignment last updated by HaEvNa (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Revision in Section “Open source in software support” for avoiding original research
Until September 23, 2013, Nvidia did not release documentation for its advanced hardware, preventing the creation of free and open-source device drivers without resorting to reverse engineering.

Instead, Nvidia furnishes proprietary GeForce graphics drivers in binary form for X.Org, along with an open-source library that interacts with the Linux, FreeBSD, or Solaris kernels and the proprietary graphics software. Nvidia had also initially offered, but later discontinued, a concealed open-source driver limited to two-dimensional hardware acceleration, which was included in the X.Org distribution.

Dissatisfaction arose in free-software communities due to the proprietary nature of Nvidia's drivers, limiting features on certain platforms. Nvidia also provided an obfuscated open-source driver, discontinued later, which only supported two-dimensional hardware acceleration.

Due to the restricted design of the drivers, Nvidia graphics cards may lack sufficient functionalities on certain platforms and architectures. This limitation arises because the company exclusively offers driver builds for x86/x64 and ARMv7-A. DT2139 (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Nvidia


text:
October 1974 United Kingdom general election

The October 1974 United Kingdom general election took place on Thursday 10 October 1974 to elect 635 members of the House of Commons. It was the second general election held that year; the first year that two general elections were held in the same year since 1910; and the first time that two general elections were held less than a year apart from each other since the 1923 and 1924 elections, which took place 10 months apart.

The election resulted in a narrow victory for the Labour Party, led by Prime Minister Harold Wilson, which won a wafer-thin majority of 3 seats, the narrowest in modern British history. It was to remain the last general election victory for the Labour Party until 1997, with the Conservative Party winning majorities in the next four general elections. It would also be the last time Labour won more seats at a national election than the Conservatives until the 1989 European Parliament election. This remains the most recent General Election that Labour made net gains in seats while as the governing party.

The narrowness of the majority meant that the Labour government saw a gradual loss of its majority by 1977 through a series of by-election losses and defections, thus requiring deals with the Liberals, the Ulster Unionists, the Scottish Nationalists and the Welsh Nationalists. It led to the eventual defeat of the government in a no-confidence motion in March 1979, six months before the mandatory dissolution of Parliament was set to take place.

This election was held just seven months after the previous general election, held in February 1974, had led to a hung parliament, with Labour winning 301 seats and the Conservatives left with 297. Following the inconclusive nature of coalition talks between the Conservatives and other parties such as the Liberals and the Ulster Unionists, the Labour Leader Harold Wilson went on to form a minority government.

The October campaign was not as vigorous or exciting as the one in February. Despite continuing high inflation, Labour boasted that it had ended the miners' strike, which had dogged Heath's premiership, and had returned some stability. The Conservative Party, led by Leader of the Opposition and former Prime Minister Edward Heath, released a manifesto promoting national unity, but its chances of forming a government were hindered by the Ulster Unionist Party refusing to take the Conservative whip at Westminster in response to the Sunningdale Agreement of 1973.

Both the Conservatives and the Liberals saw their vote share decline, and Heath, who had lost three of the four elections that he contested, was ousted as Conservative leader in February 1975 and replaced with future Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. The Scottish National Party won 30% of the Scottish popular vote and 11 of Scotland's 71 seats in the party's most successful general election result until 2015.

The election was broadcast live on the BBC and was presented by David Butler, Alastair Burnet, Robert McKenzie, Robin Day and Sue Lawley.

Since Jeremy Thorpe's death in December 2014, this is the latest election where all the three major party leaders are deceased.

Campaign
The brief period between the elections gave Wilson the opportunity to demonstrate reasonable progress. Despite high inflation and high balance-of-trade deficits, the miners' strike, which had dogged Heath was over, and some stability had been restored. After the February election, Heath had remained largely out of the public eye.

As was expected, the campaign was not as exciting as the one in February, and overall coverage by broadcasters was significantly scaled back. The Conservatives campaigned on a manifesto of national unity in response to the mood of the public. Labour campaigned on its recent successes in government, and although the party was divided over Europe, the party's strengths outweighed that of Heath, who knew that his future relied on an election victory. Devolution was a key issue for the Liberals and the Scottish National Party, and it was now one that the two main parties also felt the need to address. The Liberals did not issue a new manifesto but simply reissued the one they had created for the last election.

Timeline
Prime Minister Harold Wilson made a ministerial broadcast on television on 18 September to announce that the election would be held on 10 October, less than eight months since the previous election. The key dates were as follows:

Results
Labour achieved a swing of 2% against the Conservatives. It was the first time since 1922 that a government had won an overall majority with less than 40% of the vote, but the majority of only three seats. The Conservatives won just under 36% of the vote, their worst share since 1918. A slight drop in the Liberals' vote saw them suffer a net loss of one seat. In Scotland, the Scottish National Party added another 4 seats to their successes in the previous election and became the fourth-largest party.

Turnout was 72.8%, which was a significant decline on the February election's 78.8% turnout.

 * + style="caption-side: bottom; font-weight:normal" |All parties shown.
 * }
 * }

Manifestos

 * Putting Britain First, October 1974 Conservative Party manifesto
 * Britain Will Win With Labour, October 1974 Labour Party manifesto
 * Why Britain Needs Liberal Government, October 1974 Liberal Party manifesto


text:
Alexis Paulin Paris

Alexis Paulin Paris (25 March 1800 – 13 February 1881) was a French scholar and author.

Life
Paris was born at Avenay (Marne). He studied classics in Reims and law in Paris. He published in 1824 an Apologie pour l'école romantique (In Defense of the Romantic school) and took an active part in Parisian journalism. His appointment, in 1828, to the department of manuscripts in the Bibliothèque royale left him leisure to pursue his studies in medieval French literature. His numerous editions of early French poems continued the work begun by Dominique Meon in raising general interest in the chanson de geste.

Admitted to the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres in 1837, Paris was shortly afterwards appointed on the commission entrusted with the continuation of the Histoire littéraire de la France. In 1853, a chair of medieval literature was founded at the Collège de France, and Paris became the first occupant. He retired in 1872 with the title of honorary professor and was promoted to officer of the Legion of Honour in the next year.

Works
His works include:

 * Manuscrits français de la bibliothèque du roi (7 vols., 1836-1848)
 * Les Romans du Garin le Loherain, précédé d'un examen des romans carlovingiens (1883-1885)
 * Les Romans de Berte aux grans piés (1832)
 * Le Romancero français, histoire de quelques anciens trouvères et choix de leurs chansons (1833)
 * an edition of the Grandes chroniques de France (1836-1840)
 * La Chanson d'Antioche (1848)
 * Les Aventures de maître Renart et d'Ysengrin (1861)
 * Les Romans de la table ronde (1868-1877).

His son Gaston Paris contributed a biographical notice to vol. xxix of the Histoire littéraire.

title: Alexis Paulin Paris


text:
Talk:Abrahamic creationism

What should be on the Creationism (theology) page?
I've tried to discuss the confusion caused by terminology. Please review, and try to pare it down (it's too long). Mkmcconn 20:08 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Internet links to assist in organizing the Creationism (theology) page
This article does need some work to become more concise, but the overall message is very clear, and the scholarly tone is ideally suited for a Wikipedia article. If you know of any Web sites where the doctrine of creation is discussed, you should provide links to them. This would help give the article some sort of initial framework. To get you started, I found the following three links using Google:

 * LEIBNIZ'S MODEL OF CREATION AND HIS DOCTRINE OF SUBSTANCE

 * SOME ASPECTS OF THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION

 * Big Bang Cosmology and Creation Theology

These three links seem to be theological in nature and bereft of any endorsement of scientific creationism. Perhaps you could find a way to integrate their content into the article. -- NetEsq 20:49 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Questions about the redirect to Creationism
It seems that there was already sufficient content here to justify keeping the article, rather than replacing it with a redirect. Wesley 13:10 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * There's a question, though, of whether the article has the correct encyclopedia title. In an encyclopedia of any religion, this would be under 'creation', or 'doctrine of creation'.  Here, it's been redirected to 'creation beliefs'.  That's a pretty good choice of terminology, I think; and it avoids confusion with creationism (the position on evolution). Mkmcconn 14:55 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Distinguishing Creationism (theology) from Creationism
I am contemplating the integrated system of topics related to creationism. And I do not see a non-overlapping logical distinction between the creationism and creationism (theology). That is, consider with me for a second the following. Suppose I am designing a sorting algorithm input to output, where input is some scholarly POV on creationism, such as Plato's POV in the Timaeus that the demiurge created the universe from an "eternal archetype" of the Good. Would the short summary of Plato's POV on creationism go on the Creationism page or on the Creationism (theology) page? The Renaissance theologians recognized Plato's POV as theology, good theology, and leading theology.

Perhaps we should consider the real name of the current Creationism page to be effectively Creationism (creation science), with the understanding that the current Creationism page will contain all of the Creationism versus evolution scholarly POVs. At some point when we have the Creationism (theology) page clearly containing creationism (theology), then it may become logically clear that the current Creationism page should be a short disambiguation page with *links to Creationism versus evolution and Creationism (theology). But, in my opinion, we won't know until we have an actual Creationism (theology) page that we feel ok about. Any ideas? Rednblu 14:46, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * You are preaching to the choir. (No pun intended.)  To wit, an article entitled "creation science" or "scientific creationism" would be the proper receptacle for the content that is currently featured in the "creationism" article.  However, at least one "eloquent" Wikipedian sees these titles as being a POV endorsement of the pseudo-science of creation science, and the mere reinstatement of an article entitled "creationism (theology)" was a hard-won compromise brought about by the involvement of Wikipedian Miguel.  At this point in time, I think it's best to move forward with the present awkwardly-named article until such time as the merits of the above-narrated arguments become self-evident. -- NetEsq 00:07, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The following might be very interesting. Could someone translate this into English? Detailed technical theological terms needs to be defined before being used. RK 23:04, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * In Catholic theology, the proposition that the human soul is immediately created by God is a corollary of the soul's spirituality. Certain psychical phenomena, such as intellectual and volitional phenomena regarding immaterial objects, indicates that their essence is intrinsically independent of the purely corporeal organism. This transmaterial subsistence supposes a corresponding mode of origin.

<< Could someone translate this into English? >>

The above-referenced passage is in English.

<< Detailed technical theological terms needs to be defined before being used. >>

In your opinion, which "detailed technical theological terms need to be defined"? Perhaps you could list them here on the talk page. -- NetEsq 00:15, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Article has been plagiarised from Catholic Encyclopedia - copyright problem?
The language of this article struck me as a bit familiar, so I did a bit of Googling - it turns out that everything from "History of the idea of creation" onwards (a good two thirds of the article) has been copied and pasted in its entirety from the online Catholic Encyclopedia (see http://www.knight.org/advent/cathen/04470a.htm). It has clearly come from an online version of the CE - note the odd formatting under "Creation the prerogative of God alone". This is characteristic of a bulleted or ordered list which has been copied from a web page into an HTML editor such as Dreamweaver, which strips off the list formatting but messes up the spacing in doing so. The contributor appears to have overlooked this.

Given that the source has a copyright notice, this could be a violation of Wikipedia copyright policies. (I notice that the copyright status of the CE has been raised before on Wikipedia - see http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Public_Domain_Resources - but apparently without resolution.) It's certainly a violation of the requirement to acknowledge the original source. This alone makes the contributor's insertion of this unacknowledged article blatant plagiarism.

So what do we do about it? I think the copyrighted bits should be deleted, at the very least. -- ChrisO 22:22, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Have a look at Public domain resources. The source should be credit, however. --snoyes 23:02, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Oct 05
I removed the redirect to creationism as there is much more to this doctrine than simply the creationist view. KHM03 11:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Abrahamic creationism