Talk:Sinclair ZX Spectrum/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Emulation

There is a guy at the site http://dspec.eighttwelve.co.uk/index.php who's going to emulate this computer.

ZX Spectrum emulation is nothing new. What's supposedly interesting about this particular emulator is that it's for the Nintendo DS. Looks like programmers still haven't learnt what 'portability' is — sigh. --StuartBrady (Talk) 21:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Screenshots

I'm tempted to change the screenshots gallery to be (say) the top 5 games from the YS and Crash "top games of all time" listings, rather than the slightly arbitrary selection we have there (Three Weeks in Paradise?). Any opinions? Cheers --Pak21 13:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the gallery is a bit random. However, I find both lists a bit bogus. The Crash list consists mostly of games from '89-'90, except one from '87 and two from '88 - not very representative, I'd say. YS's is "better", but still lacks the greatest of them all: Elite. :) --Frodet 16:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that we have screenshots from the Crash and YS lists, is it okay to remove the screenshots section? Also, could we standardise on the appearance of the border? I'd rather they had no border, but would be happy with a small (8 or 16 pixel) border. Also, I would prefer there to be no processing on the image (i.e. no scalers/filters), mainly for consistency. Does that sound reasonable? --StuartBrady (Talk) 01:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

As I have mentioned above, I'm not overly fond of the Crash list and the two of them together still fail to include notable titles like Manic Miner, Elite, The Great Escape, 3D Ant Attack or adventures like The Rats. "Additional screenshots" do serve a purpose, but I'm not sure what would quaify for inclusion in that section.

I agree with the (emulated) border - no border at 256x192 is preferable. Another point is that some of the screenshots depict loading screens and some depicts in-game action. We want consistency, right? :-)

--Frodet 10:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point regarding loading screens — in-game screens are generally a better choice in my opinion. I agree that the Crash and YS lists aren't brilliant... but do you think that the Crash and YS galleries should be removed, in that case? As it stands, I feel we have far too many screenshots. --StuartBrady (Talk) 17:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced whether the screenshots actually add much to the article. I also think we're starting to push the boundaries of "fair use" for those images (if nothing else, we need to add fair-use rationales to each image description page as described at Wikipedia:Image_description_page#Fair_use_rationale), so I'd be tempted to remove them. Cheers --Pak21 18:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article is overly populated by screenshots right now. Would separate "screenshot"/"top 10" articles be too cheesy? Not sure how "fair use" comes into play when the whole purpose of an article/section is about the titles listed therin. How about a "top three" with images, the rest as a list and then some additional noteable titles? --Frodet 18:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be too cheesy. I think we should go back to what we had before, but maybe with different set of screenshots. 3D Deathchase, Rebelstar, All or Nothing, Rainbow Islands, Chase HQ and RoboCop doesn't sound like too bad a selection... but you'd probably expect either MM or JSW to be there. Maybe a few more, but we can't have too many. I'd draw the line at eight, personally. --StuartBrady (Talk) 21:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I gave it a shot. What d'ya think? --Frodet 21:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Much better! Thanks! The only thing I'm concerned about is the "More screenshots" heading, as it looks odd in the table of contents. --StuartBrady (Talk) 23:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary

Just to 'clarify' my edit summary: in "Remove sentence entirely: it's original research, and the amount of type actually typing is irrelevant for how long it takes to program", "type" should be "time". Probably makes more sense that way :-) Cheers --Pak21 08:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

References style

Two minor style points for references:

1. Should we use the "LAST, FIRST" or "FIRST LAST" style for names? We currently have a mix of the two (which I believe is entirely my fault).
2. When we reference (eg) Your Sinclair multiple times, should we link it every time, or just the first reference in which it is mentioned?

Any views appreciated. Cheers --Pak21 11:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I don't think WP:CONTEXT was meant to apply here... Without links for each occurance, you'd have to scan the whole list for the link, which seems bad. But then, you could have overlinking — links for each author's name might get in the way, for instance. --StuartBrady (Talk) 13:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Author's name is in reallity no different than magazine names, is it? Though, I don't know what's worse....overlinking or underlinking...:) --Frodet 21:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

As for the ordering of names, I vote for "last, first". Actually, it appears preferable to use the author's surname and initials — see WP:HARV. --StuartBrady (Talk) 14:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

"Last, First" is fine for the author and coauthor tags. As for initials (from WP:HARV):

Whether or not to use only the initial, as in Traynor, I. or the full name., as in Traynor, Ian, is a matter of personal preference.

Personally, I prefer full name. --Frodet 21:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't reading properly. I agree — the full name would be best. --StuartBrady (Talk) 21:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Good Article

I have passed this article. A no-brainer, really ... it's well-sourced, very well-illustrated, very readable (good for a computer article), well-structured. This is the closest to the good article criteria than any other article I've seen since I started trying to clear out the backlog.

Honestly, this is more than a Good Article. This is a featured article ... just do some more proofreading, maybe source some more things, take it to peer review, and you should be ready for FAC.

If anything, make the intro longer. There is enough in the article to support another graf. Daniel Case 02:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Peer review

Per Daniel Case's comments above, would anyone object if I submitted this article for peer review, with a view to submitting this as a featured article candidate in the future? Cheers --Pak21 10:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't object, but to forestall: I agree with Case's comment that the intro is a bit short. I have tried to twist my head for an extra paragraph, but everything I end up with seems to be non-NPOV. Also the chapter "Educational application" is a bit out of place. Either we need to focus the role of the Spectrum or remove the chapter entirely. --Frodet 18:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

World of Spectrum pimpage, length

Even discounting the references, there are too many comments about World of Spectrum in this article. I'll look to see what I can prune. The article itself is really pretty large, could it be cut somewhere? Chris Cunningham 10:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I've now collapsed all the short sub-sections. This gives some indication of where information should be dropped, revised or moved to sub-articles for the sake of readability. In particular I think that too much detail is given to minutae at the end of the Models section and the Software section is just too large in general, trying to cram all sorts of different things in at once. Chris Cunningham 12:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Woah. Could I request that we slow down a bit before making major changes to this article? It was giving a resounding endorsement as a Good Article and I'd like some time to think about changes before doing anything major. I'm not saying I disagree with the changes, but I'd think a bit of discussion first wouldn't hurt anything. Cheers --Pak21 12:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I like to be bold ;) I'm planning on hacking on this for a while further yet. Yes, it was GA status, but it was still rather lengthy and when the sub-headers are collapsed it makes it clear that the article is trying to tackle too much at once. I rather prefer to make changes and have them discussed than try to start with the discussion and design by committee. Chris Cunningham 12:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Right, done for now. The article is back < 32K and I don't think anything has really been dropped (the harshest pruning was in software and it has its own article now). I await bombardment :) Assuming this edit mostly survives, I'm going to add some todo items, including the impact of the Spectrum on the UK (which is almost completely unmentioned just now). Chris Cunningham

I dont't see why short articles should be the primary goal here. I would personally prefer a "lengthy" (even a badly structured) article with lots of interesting detail rather than a short superficial one. As the article stands now it's not even very logically structured (software mentioned under hardware etc), the nice perspicuous hardware list is missing, and it's actually harder to read than the long and somewhat messy version from 17 Oktober (prior to Mr Cunningham's edits). It's perfectly legitimate to reorganize, break lenghty articles into sub-articles, and add new information, but removing lots of detail without any form of consensus is nothing but quite arrogant, to say the least.

BTW, maybe Spectrum+, Spectrum 128 etc would do better as separate articles, to keep the main article shorter and allow room for more detail instead, after all, they were not much more similar to Spectrum than ZX81 were to ZX80 (which indeed has it's own article) /HenkeB 22:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any objections per se (except for the "custom" that FA/GA articles should be mostly stable) — the edits looks to be for the better. I'm more worried that we have lost something in the transition, and I'd also like to inspect the actual additions made by Chris (out of principle). Wikipedia's diff tool is not awefully good at identifying either after such massive updates. --Frodet 18:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I notice that the "old" Hardware list is now gone. The actual information is (mostly) incorporated into the body copy, but the list was very handy for comparison between the different models. It was not ideal, but could we restore the comperative information in some other form? --Frodet 18:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to go about doing so. Perhaps a sub-page? That would allow for all the various models (including the clones) to be compared directly using a nice table format. Chris Cunningham 19:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

Two points:

1. The infobox already deals with the whole family (the 1993 end date)
2. Many of the original machines shipped with clone Z80s

Cheers --Pak21 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

ATM (computer) and Profi (computer) need adding to the clone list. I don't see how to do it. Alone Coder 19:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Screenshots (2)

I think we need to think about the screenshots section again. When it was clearly based on the Top 100 games listings, the reason for the choice of shots was pretty obvious. Now... it's just some random games. Anyone have any views on how we should do? Cheers --Pak21 11:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed.

Will some expert kindly provide a source for the sentences quoted below, so that I can reach my goal of paring down the Citation Needed references on the following page? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Articles_with_unsourced_statements&from=Z

In 1982 through to 1986, the Department of Industry (DoI) allocated funding to assist UK local education authorities to supply their schools with a range of computers, with the ZX Spectrum proving useful for the control projects.[citation needed]

External 32 kB RAMpacks that mounted in the rear expansion slot were also available from third parties. As with the ZX81, "RAMpack wobble" caused by poor connection with the expansion was a frequent problem for many users, causing instant crashes and sometimes ULA or CPU burnout.[citation needed]

(A conversation between him and UK computer journalist Guy Kewney went thus: GK: "Are you going to do anything with Pandora?" AS: "Have you seen it?" GK: "Yes" AS: "Well then.")[citation needed]

Thank you so much. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 06:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I tried searching for a reference for the DoI claim, and while I don't dispute it, I didn't get anywhere. The same claim is also made in the Microelectronics Education Programme article, so a reference is needed there, too. I'm not sure that this paragraph belongs in the opening section. It certainly could be expanded, but I don't know much about the Spectrum's involvement in the programme. "Sinclair and the Sunrise Technology" (http://www.nvg.ntnu.no/sinclair/computers/zxspectrum/spec_sst.htm) is probably worth reading.

The best that I could find regarding Pandora was a usenet post: http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.sys.sinclair/msg/6bdb4bd808bdb3d6.

I found a reference for the existence of a 32 kB RAMpack: http://www.sincuser.f9.co.uk/016/hardwre.htm — but apparently that one didn't wobble! They also produced one for the ZX-81: http://www.sincuser.f9.co.uk/013/hardwre.htm. --StuartBrady (Talk) 18:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing techspecs again

This isn't a catalogue. Technical specifications are useful to a point; exhaustive ones aren't. I'm removing this again as the majority of useful information is given in the article text. Chris Cunningham 10:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this reasoning. The specs are pretty much complete, but not overly so and does not take up too much space. The section is an easy reference to which features each model has and what the differences are. You are right that the majority is in the body copy, but I find it rather unorganized and cumbersome to find when I'm interested in a specific detail (I have actually used that section several times in addition to contributing to it). Would it be "edable" if we "squeeze" the section down in size, eg. splitting it in two columns? --Frodet 16:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Why does the article need "an easy reference to what features each model has" in the first place? This isn't a catalogue. If this is information that you really think would be valuable, would it not be better using the existing Clones article to present it in a real tabular format? Chris Cunningham 17:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

In my oppinion, exactly because it's an "easy reference" — technical details, not embedded into the copy of three different chapters, easily accessable. To me, this is encyclopedic information just as it has been presented for the Commodore 64, MSX, BBC Micro and BBC Master, but even more important for the ZX Spectrum since there are many variants (and even confusions to which models does what). The Clones articles is not relevant since these variants are not clones. --Frodet 20:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The correct approach would then be to rename the Clones article. This article is plenty long already without adding in a table of duplicate information. And as I appear to end up saying a lot, another article having the same problem isn't an excuse in itself (the C64 article in particular appears to have achieved FA status in spite of itself, and if I were the kind of person who made delisting petitions I'd consider it a prime candidate). Chris Cunningham 21:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Which Clones article are you referring to? Even if there were an article about the clones, it would be about the clones and not the real thing. Whilst two wrong doesn't make one right, there seems to be some sort of consensus about having technical details in a list form — perhaps because it's "optimized" for human processing? I still don't see the problem with having copy body as well as specs in list. I agree that prose is generally preferrable to lists, but here they serve two different purposes: General/casual reading about a topic (enlightenment) and reference. --Frodet 21:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

By that argument every technical article should have a spec listing. I disagree with this in general, and in particular I disagree with it when you're talking about a 14-year chain of products where basically every part was replaced twice over. The clones list is, oddly enough, List of ZX Spectrum clones, which is mostly worthless at the moment but could be transformed into a comparison article (which is the best solution imo, as these articles are specifically designed for the kind of referencing you're implying). Chris Cunningham 22:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not a general case, but this case. If a technical article is enhanced by a spec listing, I don't see the problem. Whether the product has 14 days, 14 years or 140 years of lifespan is irrelevant. The list as it stands is not a complete technical reference down to component level, but a listing of the main features available for the different models.

That information is already presented in the article; each model is presented with its basic feature set. I don't see why repeating it again helps. Chris Cunningham 09:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Some of the information is present — spread over three chapters. That's not easy reference. Some of the information contained in the list is not in the copy body, like the existence of parallel and secondary disk driver ports; and some of it is not clearly presented, e.g. the relationship between the keypad and aux ports or that the +2 didn't have an audio-in port. I'm only saying that it would be helpfull to have that sort of specs centralized. --Frodet 23:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The clones list is, as you admit, not really article material. While a clones article might have technical details about the clones, the differences from the originals and unique features, it should not list those between the originals. That belongs in either a separate article, which in this case is not very good option as it would be rather short, or the article about the original. A complete rundown of the originals, the clones, spin-off, etc. is not, in my oppinion, a very useful article. Firstly, it would be either huge or incomplete, and secondly, only vaguely interesting in general.

--Frodet 20:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The tech specs made a lot of sense to me. Without them anyone wanting to know what the Spectrum actually was at a technical level is lost. I don't see how it is any less relevant than the history, impact or games it had available. This article is about the Spectrum. The tech specs tell you exactly what a Spectrum WAS. DamienG 03:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I second that. / HenkeB 09:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You may want to look at the way that BBC Micro does this. --StuartBrady (Talk) 19:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, it looks good. I personally prefer plain lists over such "overworked" boxes however, unless the data to be presented is so complicated (multidimensional) that boxes enhances readability more than they distract from actual contents. /HenkeB 11:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Oww oww oww. Textbook example of an inappropriate collation of information. I have a hard time believing there's any real value to being able to quickly cross-reference the information presented in that table. It belongs in a technical manual or catalogue. Chris Cunningham 12:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree on this one, but how can you be so sure that everyone shares exacly your viewpoint regarding what is relevant and what is not. I certainly miss the hardware list you removed, as it gave the big picture in an instant, without having to scan through the entire text. You cannot simply refer to rigid "textbook examples", the subject and the paricular context is more important to consider than simple rules of thumb. /HenkeB 13:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't be sure, but being bold occasionally means doing things that you aren't sure of :) At one time this article was considerably longer, and I dare say somewhat tedious to read through. When at-a-glance information such as charts and tables actually makes an article longer and more complicated, as opposed to shorter and simpler, I don't believe it's doing its job. That's why I generally favour leaving complicated information out of infoboxes, keeping charts and summaries to a minimum, and leaving particularly specific detail out of articles entirely where it overwhelms the reader.

Again, in this case the techspecs made an attempt to give an exhaustive parts listing for all official models of Spectrum. While there are certainly people who would find value in this, that isn't the sole (or, indeed, arguably the primary) criterion for inclusion. Chris Cunningham 13:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't like messy overwhelming articles either, but as I said before, the point of encyclopedia articles is not to be short or simple, the point is the information itself. The main purpose of charts, lists and tables is to supply detail without messing up the main text, i.e. a means to structure information into different levels of detail. Another pleasant multi level structure is to have successively more detailed paragraphs following the brief introduction at the top, with the deeply technical parts at the end (see for instance nested function). A casual reader may then read the first one or two paragraphs, to brief herself on the subject, and stay happily unaware of the rest. IMHO a much more appealing solution than erasing all information that's not interesting or understandable to each and every reader. / HenkeB 20:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Inflation

Will somebody provide inflation equivalents to todays money? For example, "retailing for £179.95" needs to be put in context with todays prices, as £179.95 is not much for a computer now but im sure it was back then.

Games remake

I think it would be worth it to mention retrospec. They remake classic Spectrum games. Any thoughts? AxiomShell 00:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Disagree, princpipally per point 13 of Links normally to be avoided and the fact that we don't want to open the door (again) to all the fansites being listed here. --Pak21 19:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, yes. Good point. Cheers.

AxiomShell 20:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Binary prefixes

We have a mini edit-war going on with respect to whether we should use the binary prefixes (Ki, Mi, etc) as opposed to the decimal prefixes (K, M) etc. WP:MOSNUM#Avoiding confusion states that "The use of the new binary prefix standards in the Wikipedia is not required, but is recommended for use in all articles where binary capacities are used." Given this, I would suggest that we use the binary prefixes. Any other opinions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pak21 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

Actually, in this kind of retro articles I prefer the nostalgic, good old-fashioned, plain "K" (no B) as used in the original adversitement from the '80s. For correctness I prefer the "KiB" notation. Does that make sense? :-) --Frodet 18:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

MOS specifically says, in bold no less, that this shouldn't be changed in existing articles for the sake of changing it. Binary prefixes are opaque to a majority of editors and readers anyway, and probably a supermajority of non CS people. So I'd rather stick with old skool units, as Frodet so poignantly put it. :) Chris Cunningham 22:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not true. The MoS doesn't say that. The MoS states that the changes should be accepted when the articles use "binary" capacities. Sarenne 23:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, my bad, I misread. Still, on the grounds that this is a "should" rather than a "must", and given that the article is likely to be of interest to a non-CS audience, I'm generally opposed to shifting away from SI. Chris Cunningham 23:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You could make that argument for just about every article affected by this. 'K' is too informal. 'KB' is wrong. 'KiB' is correct, but apparently it's too confusing for our audience! (Yeah, right.) FWIW, it's normal to link to KiB every now and then, so than anyone who doesn't understand the notation doesn't struggle too much. I really don't see the problem with IEC prefixes, but if we carry on using the SI prefixes incorrectly, it isn't going to interfere with my sleep or anything. :-) --StuartBrady (Talk) 22:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

In this case, it's inappropriate to use the "KiB" notation, if only because:

1. It's change for the sake of change. Arguing that "Mos lets me do it!" is just wikilawyering. IAR if the rules support disruption.
2. These prefixes didn't even exist at the time.

Incidentally, KB isn't wrong. A kilobyte is still 1024 bytes. Unscrupulous hard drive manufacturers and a few overly-picky prefix police do not a language change. Bladestorm 14:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it is wrong. The International System of Units makes this quite clear: "These SI prefixes refer strictly to powers of 10. They should not be used to indicate powers of 2 (for example, one kilobit represents 1000 bits and not 1024 bits)." --StuartBrady (Talk) 15:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Since WP:MOSNUM has not changed and I still think it reflects a consensus, I'm restoring binary prefixes per consistency within Wikipedia. Sarenne 16:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope, a capital K is not the same as the SI prefix k. While the SI prefix is defined to refer to the multiplier 1000, the capital K has been used quite unambigously to refer to 1024 in computer industry for nearly half a century. Even the size of a "byte" is more ambiguous than what K means in computing contexts. --Viznut 04:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The majority of reliable sources for this article do not use binary prefixes. If you have any thoughts/opinions then this specific topic is being discussed on the following talk page Manual of Style (dates and numbers) in the sections to do with "binary prefixes". Fnagaton 10:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

List of ZX Spectrum game programmers

List of ZX Spectrum game programmers has been prod'd as listcruft and I thought about the possibility of either moving that list here under ZX Spectrum#Notable Spectrum developers or possibly a Development/Programming on the ZX Spectrum article with information drawn from both. Thoughts? Marasmusine 08:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

SAM Coupé

I've made this comment in the SAM Coupé article, but the same change has also been made here. I was under the impression that "Spectrum Advanced Machine" was an unofficial name, so surely we shouldn't use it without acknowledging that? --StuartBrady (Talk) 19:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Cartridges

Nothing about games distributed on cartridges? (in section 'Distribution') —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.112.161.81 (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

I assume you're talking about the ZX Interface 2. Although the article already mentions the interface's support for cartridges, perhaps there be something about this in the distribution section, at least to make it clear that it wasn't a successful medium. BTW, I notice that the Interface 2 article doesn't say whether there were ever any cartridges that were not games. --StuartBrady (Talk) 00:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure Stuart's aware of it, but there weren't any non-game If2 cartridges released Cheers --Pak21 09:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

National varieties of English

I've just reverted an edit which changed optimised to optimized. Wikipedia Manual of Style states that:

• Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the usage and spelling of that country.
• If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoke conflict by changing to another

The article currently has 4 ised endings and 2 ized endings, so I propose maintaining the style as ised throughout... Hope that's ok -Tomhannen 23:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

OK by me. UK product, UK manufacturer, UK designer, main market was UK. The perfect candidate for British English. - X201 07:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)