Talk:Sinclair ZX Spectrum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sinclair ZX Spectrum article.
Article policies
Good article Sinclair ZX Spectrum has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
September 19, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
This article is within the scope of Computing WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to computers and computing. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale
Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of High priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:
To-do list for Sinclair ZX Spectrum: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
    Priority 1 (top) 
    Archive
    Archives
    1


    Contents

    [edit] Sales figures

    is there absolutely no information on total sales figures at all? this page is in dire need of some numbers, or even just a "in excess of" number if the exact is not available, the only information i can find on the entire net is that "the Spectrum sold in excess of 5 million in the UK alone" but i doubt the site i read this on is of citable quality —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.251.97 (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Links

    Somebody constantly removes zx.da.ru from links. I've added it twice. It is the largest online archive for disk releases for ZX Spectrum, unfortunately browsing is in Russian. Alone Coder 19:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

    How is a foreign-language link which hosts things of dubious legal status any more appropriate as an external link than, say, an article on Ottoman architecture? Please read WP:EL. Chris Cunningham 19:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    95% of Russian releases are PD. When Striker became admin of zx.da.ru, he made decision not to put out new releases that are not PD.

    If any guy wants his release to be removed from the site, it will be removed. WoS has not a half of Russian releases. I don't see any site that can substitute zx.da.ru. Alone Coder 11:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

    Realistically, most readers of the English Wikipedia aren't particularly interested in the Russian scene, so I don't think any Russian site should be listed here.--Pak21 12:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
    There are lots of non-English external links throughout wikipedia, in case where there doesn't exist a corresponding English language resource available. I see no problem adding it with a customary "in Russian" warning near the link to prevent non-Russian-readers from frustration. Also, there are on-line crude translation services to produce a bearable view even for those who want it in English. Philip: I certainly find your language a bit too unequivocal, but, being a native Russian speaker myself, I probably am not expressing an objective opinion myself. :-) --BACbKA 06:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    Still not seeing how a link to a release site in a foreign language adds anything of encyclopedic value to the article. It doesn't help one to understand the subject matter any better. WP:EL is really pretty clear about when external links are appropriate, i.e. not very often. Chris Cunningham 08:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    I think it would add encyclopaedic value to an emulation section. If a paragraph was written on the current state of Speccy emulation, which I think would be a valuable addition to the article, I would support adding the zx.da.ru link back. Perhaps as a citation rather than an EL. Orpheus 13:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Physical size?

    It might just be an optical illusion, but this thing looks quite small. Could someone add it dimensions to the article, please? 84.58.130.13 22:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

    The original is indeed quite small. I have added dimensions for the original 16/48K and + models (for which I have found references). --Frodet 13:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    "Quite small" is putting it mildly. I'm surprised more haven't been modded into retro-tastic laptops. Chris Cunningham 13:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Screenshot gallery

    I have removed the screenshot gallery as it was not fair use, in particular noting criterion 8: "The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational and user-interface elements is normally regarded as merely decorative, and is thus unacceptable.". We could possibly re-add a gallery of free screenshots - there are a few around. Cheers --Pak21 07:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

    Why on earth did you tag these images saying they could be deleted because they didn't have fair-use rationale, and then as soon as someone adds the requested fair use rationale you remove the lot for being a gallery?! Miremare 13:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    If someone had made a convincing fair-use rationale as to why it was necessary to have a gallery of fair-use images here, then I wouldn't have removed the gallery. As the rationales were added only for the use on the pages describing the games themselves and not this page (please remember every use of an fair-use image must have its own rationale), there was no reason to keep them here. Cheers --Pak21 13:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    I see. But I wasn't aware that there was any appropriate rationale for a gallery of fair use images..? Miremare 13:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    I'm not aware of any, but WP:NFCC criterion 8 isn't an absolute prohibition on fair use galleries. --Pak21 14:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Colours

    I've edited this a bit. Old version:

    Text can be displayed using 32 columns × 24 rows of characters from the ZX Spectrum character set, with a choice of eight colours at two levels of brightness, which gave 15 shades (black is the same in both modes).

    New version:

    Text can be displayed using 32 columns × 24 rows of characters from the ZX Spectrum character set, from a palette of 15 shades: seven colours at two levels of brightness each, plus black.

    This reads quite a bit clearer, but it loses the explicit note that there are "two" blacks, bright and normal, which happen to be the same shade. Posting here for discussion of whether this is okay. Chris Cunningham 14:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

    "...plus two identical shades of black." --Frodet 16:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
    Thing is, the question is really more of "do we really care about the loss of precision" as opposed to "how could this be reworded without losing precision". This is quite the nitpick unless you're actually writing games (which I haven't done for, like, fifteen years), so I reckon we can just omit it entirely, no? Chris Cunningham 17:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


    Just out of curiosity ... while I did know that "bright black" is still as black as the "dark" one, I could swear that I did see the difference with my setup back then (~1984-1987, ZX Spectrum 48K issue 3 connected using RF/PAL to a Grundig colour TV, don't remember the model). I wonder whether this has been done entirely in digital domain or is the brightness component added in the analog section. The reason why I am saying this is that "bright black" may actually mean "make the signal noise brighter on black" which would produce exactly the effect that I saw - barely visible, non-as-uniform extremely dark grey... Does anyone know whether there is any detailed schematic diagram of Spectrum anwywhere? --Aleksandar Šušnjar 01:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


    [edit] nonsense

    "Some board of +2A and +2B have a full board like a +3, but without disk controller chips, in a new version, reduce this space, and lines, the board is a bit in down right corner" This part doesn't make any sense. Unfortunately I don't know what it's talking about so I can't correct it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.132.10 (talk) 13:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] ZX-Poly

    Why whole bullet about this thing, though it's almost unknown even in Russia (it maybe was discussed in old newsgroups, but never saw articles in any ZX press) and never was more than concept of one enthusiast? In Russia was a bunch of much more known enhanced clones which was at least in prototype state, or produced in series. Profi, Scorpion, Sprinter, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.107.206.56 (talk) 10:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Speccy

    Reference to Speccy does not really belong in paragraph one and lowers the tone of the entire article.

    Certainly Your Sinclair used this name to refer to it but Your Sinclair was to Spectrum related magazines as The Sun is to newspapers, in style if not in circulation terms.

    I would suggest this is moved down to the Community section or removed.

    84.9.125.170 (talk) 02:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Name of 128K

    The name "Spectrum 128K" without the "+" is what is/was used by Sinclair on the box, in the manual and the technical manual. Which reliable source has described it as the "128K+"? Thanks --Pak21 (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

    Given the lack of any reliable sources using "128K+", I have reverted the name back to "128K". The argument being used that "ZX Spectrum 128K+" was printed on the machine itself is also bogus; as can been seen from the photo in the article: it has "ZX Spectrum +" in the top-left, and "128K" in the bottom-right; nowhere is the term "ZX Spectrum 128K+" used as a phrase. --Pak21 (talk) 09:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    I can't see anyone making an argument that "ZX Spectrum 128K+" is printed on the case, you therefore appear to be misquoting someone. 84.9.125.170 (talk) 06:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
    "Printed", "moulded", whatever. Please stop being pedantic about this and quote a reliable source which refers to it as the "ZX Spectrum 128K+" or "ZX Spectrum+ 128K" as opposed to the referenced Sinclair User article and the multiple references from Sinclair quoted above. --Pak21 (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
    To be fair all it needs is a quick Google for "Spectrum 128K+" which find this page that has "The 128k+ was the last machine produced by Sinclair before the Amstrad take-over and was only ever available in the U.K. for about six months before being shelved and replaced by the +2." It also has a http://www.mrbads-retro-games.com/Saved%20Scans/Photos/Small_Pics/DCP00833.jpg picture] which shows "ZX Spectrum+" on the box in big white letters. Fnagaton There was also a Spectrum +2. 20:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't see how the badly spelt "MrBads Retro Games" is a reliable source to be given priority over the user manual and the mass circulation magazines printed at the time.
    • That box is for the Spectrum+ (the version of the 48K machine with a slightly different keyboard), not the 128K! (And I'm well aware there was a +2...) --Pak21 (talk) 08:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    A quick google.co.uk search shows the following stats: "Spectrum+ 128K" : 4650 results, "Spectrum 128K+" : 1370 results, "Spectrum 128K" : 1,100,000 results. I'm not saying Google is a reliable source but I would suggest it would hint at the most-used phrase... to the tune of over 1 million links in favour of leaving out the "+". 192.93.164.23 (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    Compare the numbers for "Commodore 65" and "Commodore 64" (with the quotes) in Google. Now I know the Commodore 65 exists because I own two of the machines. ;) Fnagaton 10:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    But you're comparing two different machines - this discussion is about the correct name of a single machine. That said, "C64" gives more results than "Commodore 64", but that's the C64 for you :) 192.93.164.23 (talk) 10:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, but according to some of the websites some people think they have a "Spectrum 128K+" machine. Now the machines back then were often limited production runs and only in certain countries so it is possible that "Spectrum 128K" and "Spectrum 128K+" are both correct. Fnagaton 10:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    The machine in question is undoubtedly a Spectrum+, as it has the nasty + keyboard, and must be distinguished from its predecessor by referring to the upgraded memory clearly referenced on the case. To both correctly name it and distinguish it therefore requires some combination of Spectrum+ and 128K, unless you want to call it the "heatsink-tastic Spectrum". (please don't) 84.9.125.170 (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    Although the plastics still retained the "ZX Spectrum+" legend (presumably to minimise re-tooling costs) with the addition of a "128K" in the corner, all the official Sinclair literature I've seen relating to this model (at least in the UK market) consistently called it the ZX Spectrum 128. For instance, see the user manual. This then, seems to me to be the correct nomenclature to use in the article. Letdorf (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC).
    The Amstrad web site Products Archive lists the +3 as ZX Spectrum 128K+3 - this can be extrapolated to give ZX Spectrum 128K+ as an official name for the first 128K Spectrum. 0x54097DAA (talk) 11:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    Extrapolation is not required. There is plenty of evidence for the form ZX Spectrum 128 (no "K", no "+") being used by SRL in advertising, documentation and packaging: see here or here or here (note that to save money, the "User Guide" was the same as the one issued with the ZX Spectrum+, but was supplemented with a "ZX Spectrum 128 Introduction" booklet) . Even Investronica's Spanish adverts called it El Spectrum 128. Letdorf (talk) 12:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC).

    [edit] Rename article to 'Sinclair ZX Spectrum' to match other Sinclair models

    This appears to be the only article about a Sinclair computer system that does not have Sinclair in the article name. Witness Sinclair ZX80, Sinclair ZX81, Sinclair QL. I therefore suggest that this article be renamed to Sinclair ZX Spectrum.

    Some people may allege that it was not a Sinclair after the Amstrad purchase, but even when Al dragged it off to Essex it still bore the Sinclair name. The Plus 2 et al although colloquially referred to in certain circles as Amstrad Spectrums still had the original Sinclair logo on them, and were really just as Sinclair as the previous models. 84.9.125.170 (talk) 12:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] disambiguation of kilobyte

    The kilobyte is an ambiguous unit, and the WP Manual of Style requires such units to be disambiguated. I have done this (for a second time) by converting 16 KB to kibibytes. Please don't revert without discussion. Thunderbird2 (talk) 09:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

    Maybe someone thinks that disambiguating with a virtually unused terms doesn't improve the article? How about you change it so that is states the number of bytes exactly if you think there is that much "ambiguity"? This way you don't rely on using terms that many people do not understand or know about. Fnagaton 12:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
    Hi Fnagaton. The justification given in the edit summary for removing the disambiguation was not that kibibytes are unknown but that kilobyte defined as power of two by law now, which is simply incorrect. You know my position on this. I have no objection to the article being modified in the way you suggest, if other editors consider it an improvement. Thunderbird2 (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
    OK, I've made the change to state the number of bytes and we can try that version on the editors involved here to see if it accepted. On the legal aspect, actually it is "defined by law" (sort of) since there is precedent from the harddrive law suit where the summary clearly states the terms are binary powers of two. Fnagaton 12:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
    No, it is not "defined by law (sort of)". There isn't "the" harddrive lawsuit. There were multiple of them in the USA and all of them were settled. No judge ever made a decision on this. --217.87.83.213 (talk) 12:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, that's why I wrote "(sort of)" since I know what the other editor was referring to when the editor made their change comment. Fnagaton 12:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
    Ooh what fun! Kilobyte is totally unambiguous and entirely suitable in reference to this machine - nobody had yet come up with the crazy idea of inventing kliblibytes or whatever they are in the early 80's, and the machine memory sizes are integer multiples of proper binary kilobytes. 84.9.125.170 (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)