Template talk:Nintendo hardware

Accessories
Clearly I do not understand how the Accessories line makes it look better. Can anyone explain that to me? Jedi6 21:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It's there as part of the fictionality for the sub template. I designed the template originally so that the accessories sub templates could be written without any formatting. Add an argument to the template, like  and you will see the NES accessories displayed with it. Dread Lord C y b e r S k u l l  ✎☠ 13:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I understand now. Jedi6 02:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Did the sub-template stop working? KMS (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, someone removed the functionality. Subsequently the sub-templates were then deleted: Templates for deletion/Log/2009 June 24 192.55.54.42 (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

proper footer format
Would anybody oppose this version? It is much closer to the usual footer format found across wikipedia.

I can also restaure the "subheaders", but I think it makes the template takes excesive evrtical space (and absence or presence of color doesn't change that.):

- —This unsigned comment was added by Circeus (talk • contribs).
 * --They are both good. Personally I like the second one but it doesn't really matter. Jedi6  -(need help?)  19:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Accessories
When the accessories are listed for GB/GBA and GC, the Game Link Cable is linked to a redirect page. Please capitalize all three words in the link to correct this (change from "Game Link cable" to "Game Link Cable"). Thanks. - Everchanging02 04:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. I fixed it.  -  Everchanging02 04:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This is looking good
Thanks to many contributions (including mine if i may say so), this discussion page is looking good. But why was 'Wii' written as 'Nintendo Wii', and should 'Virtual console' and 'Wiiware' be listed in the Wii brackets? There should be a bit of a clean up--213.83.125.225 (talk) 09:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

DSi
I noticed that someone split the Nintendo DS and the Nintendo DSi. I was under the idea that the DSi is just another version of the Nintendo DS.184.77.221.150 (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not, not exactly anyway. It isn't as major an improvement over the DS/DS lite as the DS was over the Game Boy Advance for example, but it does have slightly improved hardware and can play games that can't be played on older systems, making it similar to the step up from the Game Boy to Game Boy Color.  Since the GBC is listed separately from the Game Boy/Game Boy Pocket, it makes sense to separate the DSi from the DS as well.-Jeff (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Listing for Twin Famicom?
There is no mention of the Twin Famicom here or in the FDS article. Is there a reason for this? While it wasn't made by Nintendo, it is a licensed product.

Gumbyx84 (talk) 06:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I decided to add it since it was officially licenced.--76.66.187.132 (talk) 05:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Missing hardware/articles
These hardware need English articles before links can be added to the template:

GB Kiss (ja:GB KISS)

Famicom Box (ja:ファミリーコンピュータ)

Nintendo M82

-- 186.31.189.213 (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I doubt any of these are notable enough to have their own article. They're better off as just mentions elsewhere. Namcokid  47  (Contribs) 20:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What's the criteria to decide how notable they need to be? Super Famicom Box has already it's own article and is included on the template, so naturally Famicom Box should be too.  I see it as a matter of completeness.  If a product is notable enough for Nintendo to grant it an official licence, then it is notable enough for inclusion. --186.31.189.213 (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You're not getting my point. I'm saying that neither of these articles appear notable enough to have their own article, let alone be added to the navbox. I doubt Super Famicom Box has any notability on its own, or a lot of these real-obscure Japan-only peripherals, so I think an AfD might be in order for that one. Namcokid  47  (Contribs) 15:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I fully understand what you are saying. I found the Wikipedia guidelines on Notability and read through them.  It says, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list".  Based on that, these topics may or may not be notable enough; it depends on the research used to produce the article which hasn't been done yet.  If someone wants to put in the effort to find significant coverage from reliable sources, then there would be no problem with the notability of these articles.  These could potentially turn out to be good articles.  It's not for you nor anyone else to decide that they would not be notable enough before having done any research.  The whole point of an encyclopaedia is to give information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject (check the definition). --190.27.183.137 (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)