Talk:Nintendo 64 accessories

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was to merge both into Nintendo 64 accessories. MuZemike 22:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

---

I propose that Wide-Boy 64 and GB Hunter both be merged into Nintendo 64 accessories. This comes from a suggestion from a related merger proposal at Talk:Nintendo 64#Merger proposal in that sufficient notability cannot be established as independent articles, and both can easily be included in the accessories page. Please discuss below and indicate whether you support or oppose the merger. MuZemike 18:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support: Consolidating them together would benefit the smaller articles and give them more exposure since very little links to them. There are already entries for them in this article that could easily be expanded. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC))

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tags

All those inline tags have rendered parts of the article almost unreadable. It's like some lazy wikilawyer nitpicker went through and put a tag on every single thing that didn't have an inline citation. Most of them are quite simply frivolous, and smack of laziness and attempts at self importance. The vast majority of them are trivially verifiable: to the point that it wouldn't've taken much longer to verify them than it did to tag them. Not every single tidbit needs an inline citation to prove it's true. Many of them are common knowledge. Anyone that's actually used the system any amount knows about the Control Pack management screen. Anyone that was around at the time knows the Expansion Pack doubled the onboard RAM(trivially verifiable), and that the system used RDRAM(Also trivially verifable). Similarly with the pre-installed Jumper Pack(which indeed had that name on it, along with a sticker stating not to remove it).

Seriously. Think before you tag. At the very least TRY to verify it before you tag it. Simply putting a tag on it without checking that the information is correct doesn't help anyone, it just makes you look insecure. -Graptor 208.102.243.30 (talk) 08:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Expansion Pak

Jet Force Gemini does not support the EP, though Rare originally considered it, but the ad was not removed from the box cover, leading to confusion. I removed JFG from the EP-support list. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_Force_Gemini TyVulpine (talk) 12:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.allgame.com/platform.php?id=22. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

3rd Party Memory + rumble

there have been 3rd party rumble packs including 1 (or more) memory packs - the original only act as rumble — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.133.177.202 (talk) 10:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Improved lighting with expansion pak

It came to my attention that the resources required by the original cartridge of this game require the expansion pak...about 20 years ago when I first played it. DK64 simply does not work without the expansion pak, and no one is pretending that it does. Why has it been the subject of recent edits? What the expansion pak is for, officially or otherwise, is to fix the game-breaking bug, which as far as I know can still happen if the game is left on for too many consecutive hours. How does improved lighting fit in here? As much as I am curious about the origins of the necessity of the N64 expansion pak for DK64, I have yet to see a reliable source that defines the conjecture that is improved lighting. If someone could enlighten me on that fact with a credible source, I'd be delighted. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 02:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Paper Luigi: I have no clue, and neither do the homies at n64dev.org who I hang out with every day, and I think neither does the belligerent editor. I've asked on IRC a couple of times. Oh well. — Smuckola(talk) 03:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

NUS-

There are a lot of repeated NUS-0xx in the headers in this article at the moment. There is no explanation in the article what this code (?) is and I think it makes the headings look very messy. Could they be moved to the paragraph under the hading and explained, moved to a table, or removed? Sertion (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

They're Nintendo's model numbers; similar numbers are used for different consoles. According to this it stands for "Nintendo Ultra Sixty-Four"; a full list of them can be found here (both pages are linked from the Nintendo 64 article). IMO they don't need to be in the section headers, though; either a table or in prose for each section would be fine. --Pokechu22 (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I changed it by adding a new table with codenames. Please feel free to make changes to if anything can be improved! Sertion (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Smuckola (see this edit) that a table is redundant, but otherwise, great solution, Sertion! The explanation for the numbers is simple and direct, and taking the numbers themselves out of the section headings makes them look neater and eliminates the jargon. Nice work.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)