Template talk:Computer model specs

From 68kMLA Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


Tom, is this template meant for use as an infobox on model pages? Just curious, since this is the first thing I wanted to contribute. May want to consider changing the name, though. I anticipate the wiki expanding to coverage beyond just 68k computers (e.g. Apple monitors, Apple printers, iPods) so "specifications" could easily become ambiguous—maybe computer model specs instead. ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That was the plan — make any changes you feel necessary. Renaming it makes sense. How about something like Specifications-Computer? Then we could have similar pages for other devices at Specifications-Printer, etc. → ~tl (talk · contribs) 21:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Thinking about this more, wouldn't it make sense to make this template have "infobox" somewhere in the title? I was thinking maybe we should have a template for the full specifications section, therefore it'd make more sense to have this at Template:Computer specs infobox and that at Template:Computer specs extended or something similar. → ~tl (talk · contribs) 23:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I've created a new template for the full specifications: Template:Computer specs full. → ~tl (talk · contribs) 13:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What to actually include...

I don't think the information you're including and the layout at the moment is really the optimum. How about the following:

  • Form-factor:
  • CPU:
  • FPU:
  • RAM Type:
  • RAM Slots:
  • RAM Max:
  • Floppy Drive:
  • Hard Drive:
  • Expansion Slots:
  • OS Support :
  • Released:
  • Discontinued:
  • MSRP:

I think breaking up the RAM into separate entries will make it easier to read... it's a bit confusing at the moment. What do you think? → ~tl (talk · contribs) 23:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I was just thinking... if we were going to be making substantial changes to the content of the infobox, it'd probably be worth creating a new template for it and depreciating this one to avoid breaking the current pages. I suggested renaming this template to include "infobox" above so that would be a good opportunity to do it. It would also make sense to use the same parameter names as the full template I've just created -- since you can put the parameter in any order when including the template code, that would mean you could simply copy/paste the first couple of parameter as a block between the infobox and full specs to save retyping. → ~tl (talk · contribs) 09:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
You're definitely correct that the infobox doesn't include everything, possibly correct that it doesn't include the right things, and probably correct that the format is just plain bad. (How's that for hedging? ☺) I don't object to completely scrapping it and starting over (better now than later! not all the model articles have been written yet) including a new format, if we can come up with something better. Some things I'd like to see in this template (which is likely going to be the most important of the wiki due to wide exposure) are: 1) the parameter names are logical and consistent—maybe everything having to do with RAM starts with ram-, etc., 2) that parameters are useful for categorization, as is the case in the current template, and 3) that we only have one template for specs. This latter point is a biggie, since cramming all the trivia and minutiae that we could consider "specs" into an infobox is going to look horrible, no two ways about it. Yet an "infobox" type template is invaluable for putting pertinent details right up front, accessible to seekers of information, in an attention-grabbing way. Having specs duplicated within the article is just silly—it's a waste of space (on the page and on the disk) and (editorial) time. What I would propose, not knowing if it is possible, is a template with hidden sections that expand when a widget is clicked. (I've seen stuff like this done, I just don't know if we can build it—easily—in MediaWiki. It would involve DOM manipulation with Javascript.) So you basically have the abbreviated "general specs" visible by default, and can expand to see the "whole megillah" if you want. ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that you're right that it should only be the bare essentials in the infobox. I also agree, that the values in the infobox should be used for categorisation. However, I actually think it's ESSENTIAL that we include the full specifications somewhere in the article. Have a look at the full specifications template I made up above. I think it would be worth keeping the parameter names between that and the infobox. I think I've made them as logical as possible -- though you might want to split some of them up to aid with categorisation (i.e. the released/discontinued into separate month and year parts). Also, I mentioned above about having the infobox parameters as a block at the start of the full specs. That would make it VERY simple to copy and paste that single block between the infobox template and the full specs template -- that's hardly much editorial work! → ~tl (talk · contribs) 16:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
True, it is simple copy-n-paste. As long as parameter names are the same. Dunno what I was thinking... I guess we should concentrate on the "full" specs, then decide which subset to use for the infobox? ⇔ ChristTrekker 18:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)