Talk:MicroOffice RoadRunner

Owen Davies

Came from DyK nom for reading the article out of curiosity and support a little . I wished I internal link Owen Davies but that seems a disambig article. Good article any ways keep it up Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 10:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

MicroOffice RoadRunner

• ... that the RoadRunner (pictured), a laptop from 1983, loaded and stored data from cartridges? Source: Ahl 1984
  • ALT1: ... that the RoadRunner (pictured), a laptop from 1983, had a battery rated for eight hours of usage? Source: Ahl 1984
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Electronic Arrays 9002

Created by DigitalIceAge (talk). Self-nominated at 05:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC).

• ALT2: ... that the RoadRunner (pictured), a laptop from 1983, stored data on removable RAM cartridges?

Logic: lots of machines of the era used cartridges and that's not terribly interesting. But a RAM cart? I can't recall any other machine of the era offering that kind of thing - some game carts stored high scores and such, but even that is relatively rare. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

To my knowledge the only other laptop of the time that employed cartridges for data storage and software was the Sharp PC-5000, and that only had a paltry one. Cartridges were certainly common for games consoles and home computers, but for a business laptop (ostensibly all laptops back then were business laptops) I think it was quite the novelty. DigitalIceAge (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, point taken, comment stricken. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell this nomination meets all requirements except for the required review of another nomination. Graearms (talk) 02:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
  • @Graearms: QPQ now done. DigitalIceAge (talk) 06:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
    • @DigitalIceAge: Alright then, this nomination meets all of the criteria. Graearms (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
      • @Graearms: for the two ticks you used, you'll want to make sure to use {{subst:DYKtickAGF}} () and {{subst:DYKtick}} (). That way, the bot will recognize the ticks every time and move the nomination to its proper area. In addition, you don't want to use the former tick unless all of the review requirements are met, including the QPQ. For incomplete nominations, we have {{subst:DYK?}} () for minor gaps and {{subst:DYK?no}} () for major errors. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
      • And, for final clarity, this tick. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)