Talk:Raytheon 704

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 Vaticidalprophet (talk) 07:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that in 1970 one could buy a Raytheon 704 computer for less than $10,000 ($65,000 today) with a blazing 1 MHz CPU speed and a whopping 8 kB of memory? Source: Dummer et al, pg 805 - inflation template for the conversion

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Body image disturbance

Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self-nominated at 22:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC).

• What we haven't had yet in DYK is sarcasm. That said, I love the hook. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• I am so completely on board with well-sourced sarcasm. please don't spoil my fun as a prep set promoter, this is gold theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Article is new enough and long enough. Does not appear to have ever been on the front page. No obvious copyright problems. I'm a little concerned about over-reliance on WP:PRIMARY sources, but that's not a DYK criteria, and is otherwise appropriately sourced. No issues with WP:BLP or WP:N. QPQ done. The hook is appropriately sourced and meets the length requirement, but this would be a little tighter:

• ALT1 "... that in 1970 a Raytheon 704 cost less than $10,000 ($65,000 today) with a blazing 1 MHz CPU and a whopping 8 kB of memory?"

-- RoySmith (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• @RoySmith and Maury Markowitz: I absolutely hate that I'm objecting to this, because I really want to promote this hook, but I'd have to see a citation for the sarcastic adjectives before I could promote. At the very least, some kind of justification, although that might be WP:OR territory. I'm happy to be wrong on this one, but I can't signoff just yet. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

These are not sarcastic! At the time these were impressive numbers - systems using core generally ran slower and came with less memory - a PDP 8/I cost about $13k for a system with 6k and ran about half as fast. We could even mention the weight, 75 lbs vs 250 for the PDP. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Okay, fair enough—any citations justifying the adjectives, then? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 16:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
• @Maury Markowitz? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Sorry, BIRL. Citations added, along with expanded section. Why can I not find this nom without having a link? (ahh, it's been moved to prep) Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• ALT2 "... that in 1970, a Raytheon 704, costing less than $10,000 ($65,000 today) was used to play games?" but you'll need to re-arrange the lead a bit to get a suitably quotable sentence. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

theleekycauldron, have your objections been addressed? Also, what are your feelings on ALT2? BlueMoonset (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Maury Markowitz and RoySmith: good to go with ALT1! As for ALT2, would an ALT2a work?

ALT2a: ... that the Raytheon 704, which cost over $10,000, was an early example of computers used for gaming?

I still would prefer ALT1, but if it's ALT2, I'd prefer ALT2a. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I have no objection to ALT2a. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Well I object; it's wrong - NIM predates it by a decade, so it's not early. Is there any reason not to use the already approved ALT1? Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Thought we'd humour other suggestion first, but I'll promote ALT1 soon enough theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 22:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• theleekycauldron, as you're the one who approved ALT1, you can't also promote it. Sorry. (I've struck the ALT2s per Maury Markowitz's objection.) BlueMoonset (talk) 02:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• @BlueMoonset: really? It's more an ALT0a than it was an ALT1, my objection was for the citations that would appear in either one. RoySmith's original approval for that hook still stands, no? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 03:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Really. Sorry, theleekycauldron. If you're talking about promoting ALT0, then you could do it, but ALT1 is RoySmith's, even if a somewhat reworded/shortened version of ALT0, so it needs someone else to approve it. That's what you did for ALT1, which prevents you from promoting it. Someone will come along and promote it in due course. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: all right, fair enough. I'll wait for someone else to promote ALT1, then. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)