Template talk:Handheld game consoles

TurboExpress v SNK

Why is TurboExpress listed among SNK handhelds? It was produced by NEC, not SNK. R4kk00n 19:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Vertical layout

Why is it vertical? It makes it harder to read and really looks ugly - i.e, some pages stick out a lot longer because of the template. Hbdragon88 22:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

"Major" handhelds

Okay, I'm an idiot for not seeing that at the top of the template (see the template history for my foot being planted firmly in my mouth). But does it belong? Surely if it's only "major" handhelds, things like the Megajet don't belong? Is there a more complete template? Shouldn't this be more inclusive rather than exclusive? Rhindle The Red 01:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the "major" is a carry-over from template:Dedicated video game consoles, a template which would become untenably large if every documented video game console were included. (Also that template was organized by specific console generation, whereas this one appears to be ordered by manufacturer.) So I guess that the standards are different and the "major" qualification doesn't really serve the same role and might as well be removed.

Still this template shouldn't become unseemly or overly complicated, at some point in the future a split (e.g. template:Nintendo handheld consoles) may be in order.

On a different note I'm gonna remove the Sega VMU from the template, as it was primarily a memory card with very limited console-like functionality. ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 06:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Pokemon mini

I'd like people to explain just why they don't want the Pokemon mini listed here. It is a handheld console with individually packaged cartridges. It may be obscure, but it is more easily obtained than the PockatStation, GP32 et.al., and is arguably better known than them as well. I know it's small and has only a few titles, but that doesn't change the fact that it exists and should be acknowledged. My life won't be destroyed if it is ultimately kept out, but I think a consensus needs to be built as to what belongs on this list and what doesn't.Rhindle The Red 15:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The killer: It has no third-party support at all to speak of. At least N-Gage did have dev kits and some companies did make video games. Hbdragon88 07:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why that's relevant. How many third parties developed for the SuperVision or the Mega Duck? Rhindle The Red 21:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

One add, one remove.

Adding Tapwave Zodiac to the "Other" list, and removing the OQO 2. The Zod was specifically sold as a "handheld game console" that happened to be a Palm, just as the N-Gage (already listed) was sold as a "handheld game console" that happened to be a cell phone. The OQO 2 is not in any possible stretch of the imagination, being sold as a "handheld game console" any more than the fact that I can play Ms. Pac-Man on my iPod Classic makes it a game console. Ehurtley (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Pandora

Is it time to add the Pandora to the list? It hasn't been released yet, but will be within a few months. Esn (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

When it's released that will be the time to add it. Gh5046 (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's NOT a GPH product, it is produced by some of their distributors, hence the confunsion. I don't know the actual company's name... 80.91.81.87 (talk) 09:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Elektronika IM

I've added Elektronika IM to the list. The article itself is severly lacking, but those games were very popular in late-1980s Eastern Bloc, and are well known, so I believe they are singnificant enough to add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArCgon (talk • contribs) 13:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Tiger trouble

This template confused Tiger Electronics and Tiger Telematics (and linked not to either, but to the animal!). Since both companies' products feature among the worst-selling handhelds of all time, I think removal is the way to go. The Gizmondo 2 isn't even released yet, for all I could ascertain. Huon (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion/Exclusion of handhelds

Can someone explain why systems such as the N-Gage, Pandora, and Tapwave Zodiac are included in the template, but the iPod Touch and iPhone are not? It doesn't seem to make sense to me. Brianreading (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone? Brianreading (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The iPhone and iPod Touch are not dedicated gaming consoles, are they? The lines are very blurry, but I'd call the iPhone primarily a phone. Huon (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh? The N-Gage, Pandora, and Tapwave Zodiac are all not dedicated gaming consoles. Hell, it could be argued that the PSP isn't either. The iPod Touch isn't even a phone, what about that? Brianreading (talk) 02:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't add any of those, but they all mention "games" or "gaming" in the respective articles' first or second sentence. The iPhone and iPod Touch articles don't mention gaming at all. It may be a matter of marketing, but apparently the N-Gage, Pandora and Zodiac are meant to be gaming consoles, and Apple's devices, while they probably may be used as such, aren't advertised as such. I didn't invent these rules, but I do think that we shouldn't add every mobile phone or PDA that can be used for gaming. Huon (talk) 03:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The iPod Touch is being marketed as a gaming device. [1], [2], [3], [4] The iPhone and iPod Touch have been referred to specifically as a "game console" or mentioned as a threat to the Nintendo DS by Apple executives such as John Geleynse and Greg Joswiak respectively. [5], [6], so you see it doesn't really make sense to say that it isn't being marketed as a video game platform. Brianreading (talk) 00:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you edit the iPod Touch article correspondingly. This template should in my opinion not be burdened with sources. Still the question remains: Where do you want to draw the line? What is a dedicated gaming console, where begins the realm of media players, mobile phones and PDAs? The line is blurring, but for the purpose of this template, we have to draw it somewhere. By the way, the iPod Touch article doesn't contain this template. Shouldn't it? Huon (talk) 01:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I mean just because the iPod Touch article hasn't had this information added to it yet, doesn't mean the device shouldn't be included here. I've also attempted to add the navbox to the iPod Touch, and it was removed. I think a good indicator of where to draw the line is what the technology world considers to be a video game console. Basically, there aren't any reliable, secondary sources that I know of which claim that it's not a console, and there are many which claim that it is. This is how Wikipedia determines how to include something. Brianreading (talk) 01:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I see things the other way around. If someone follows this navbox's link to the iPod Touch article, that article should make clear why he got there. In my opinion, as long as the iPod Touch article doesn't even mention gaming (and as long as the navbox is removed from the iPod Touch article), the iPod Touch doesn't belong on the template. Huon (talk) 10:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Merger of "Early units" with "Other handhelds"

I was putting the "Other handhelds" into chronological order for ease of use to navigators using this template when I realized that several of the "Other handhelds" overlapped in date with the "Early units." Since "early" is a completely ambiguous term anyway I merged the two and subcategorized by decade. I think this best meets the needs of the community regarding ease of template-based navigation. -Thibbs (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, in the way of a brief non sequitur:
I have expressed my opinion in the past as well that the Speak and Spell should also be listed here as it did have games that could be played via removable cartridges and it had a VFD display screen. Although I admit that it was an educational electronic handheld (the "dealbreaker" issue that the community couldn't look beyond in previous discussions), the Leapster is as well and there seems to be no issues with that. Anyway I'm not including the Speak and Spell here because consensus seemed to be against it last time I suggested such a thing. I'd just like to register my opinion again in the hopes that any historian using Wikipedia to research early handheld game systems may stumble into talk and learn what he cannot from the articles. -Thibbs (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

iPod Touch

Input welcome at this discussion Talk:IPod Touch#"Dedicated" hand held?. Яehevkor ✉ 16:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Leapfrog isn't consider a handheld console

By industry it not considered traditional handheld or home consoles. Doremon764 (talk) 14:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I would say they weren't major handheld consoles, but if that were the criteria, this template would only need three or four rows. Interestingly I think Leapfrog would have agreed with you, though the at the height of the product line, it appears that it was considered a viable competitor by the media. --Mbrickn (talk) 05:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)