Template talk:Computer specs full

From 68kMLA Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

How does this look?

I've redone the Macintosh II article to use my new info boxes... what do you think? → ~tl (talk · contribs) 22:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

suggestions...

  • Move fpu to fpu-type to mirror cpu-type.
  • Drop pds-type in favor of lcpds, so all slot types can be consistently named, rather than worrying about some slots having sub-types...it will make categorization easier.
    • Maybe all the slot parameters should have slots- on the name? E.g. slots-pds. We're kind of doing that with other "groupings" of things.
  • Born/died...hee hee, just had to mention I like that. ☺
  • What about os-osname to denote the various OSs it can run? E.g. os-mac, os-aux, os-linux, etc. We could categorize on that...
  • (And continuing to Template:computer specs full just to keep things together) Move adb, serial, scsi etc to ports-adb, ports-serial, etc.
  • Move cd-* to optical-* in case we expand to DVD-era machines at some point.
  • How about display-size, display-res, display-depth?
  • Flip the chimes to chime-*.

These are all just suggestions, so if they are misguided or too anal, just let me know. ☺ I really like the overall design, both graphically (nice colors and layout) and technically (fields that appear only when supplied). ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

All are pretty valid I guess and certainly will make the style a bit more consistent. However, they will require modifying every page that uses the template... so will be quite a lot of work to change. I did the PDS that way since there are so many different types of PDS slots, and I haven't ever found a conclusive list of them. It would be nicer to do it that way though. The following come to mind:
  • SE-PDS - SE only.
  • LC-PDS - LC & LC II only.
  • LCIII-PDS - Extension to LC-PDS slot, was used in LCIII and later LC machines. Can accept LC-PDS cards as well as LCIII-PDS specific ones.
  • 030-PDS - SE/30 & IIsi.
  • IIfx-PDS - IIfx only.
  • IIci-PDS - IIci, IIvx & IIvi only.
  • 040-PDS - Used in some of the '040 Quadras.
  • 601-PDS - Used in the first generation (Nubus) PowerMacs.
  • Any more?
That's going to add a lot of parameters -- which is why I settled for having a single pds and then having pds-type to describe what it was. I don't know which way is better really. There is also the Performa Comm Slot with two varieties (Comm Slot 1 and 2) which I forgot about. And PCMCIA would be worth adding too. I don't know how detailed we want to go really. There are other slots as well (like the DAV & TV Tuner slots) but they are only specific to a few machines. Maybe having one other-slots or something to cover those.
We could split the display section up more, but how would that work if there were multiple resolutions which support different colour depths. For example, some machines will be "640x400 (16 bit), 640x480 (8 bit)" etc. Taking that into account, I think the current parameters work quite well. display is just for the size if there's an internal display, whereas the others are applicable if there's an internal display or not.
It's up to you if you want to go for the changes really. Better to do things now when there's less to modify! It wouldn't be too hard to deprecate parameters so they still work where the template has already been used, but makes it a bit messier. → ~tl (talk · contribs) 11:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Holy slotitude, Batman! I never realized there were so many varieties—I guess I was thinking it was maybe three types. It probably would be easier to have a modifier field in that case. If the exact type is unknown (and it shouldn't be for very long, as other editors pitch in) the category can be just "computers with PDS slots" but if the modifier is there then it's "with X-PDS slots". So I'll leave that as-is, and just work on changing slots-/ports- parameter names for consistency.
Regarding displays, I think that most people (in 68k fandom) realize that as you increase resolution with a given amount of VRAM (which is often fixed), you have to sacrifice color depth. I'd favor listing the max resolution and color depth the machine can drive, even though it can't do both at the same time. But maybe I'm wrong, and this would be confusing to most people. ⇔ ChristTrekker 14:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Haha, yeah. Everytime they changed CPU ('020 -> '030 for example) or even the architecture dramatically the PDS slots became incompatible, since a PDS slot is exactly that -- a connection directly to the processors data/address pins. The exception to that rule is the LC-PDS/LCIII-PDS slots which are actually not really PDS slots! They emulate the connection to the processors data and address pins. The template already categorises based on whether a PDS type is set. Everything gets stuck in the "Computers with PDS slots" category as well... since they technically all do! I don't think it's worth changing the variables just to make them consistent really... it's going to be too much work to change all the machine pages TheNeil has already done... → ~tl (talk · contribs) 15:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Just realised something... having two things for PDS is completely redundant! No machine ever had or could have more than one PDS slot... so we could just keep pds and use it for the type. → ~tl (talk · contribs) 15:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Brilliant! ⇔ ChristTrekker 16:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Do we need to figure out how to make bots to do large-scale updates? ☺ ⇔ ChristTrekker 16:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes... I've been looking into that! → ~tl (talk · contribs) 17:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
jump downChristTrekker 15:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

jump link

The #specs link can be #Full Specifications as long as you name that section consistently. MediaWiki automatically makes section heads into targets (that's how the page ToC works), so you don't have to remember to put your own target in. ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I had considered that before. I didn't do it just in case people weren't consistent with the naming of the section. However, I don't think that's going to be a huge problem (and we can certainly correct it on any templates that use a different name) so I've gone ahead and changed it. It certainly looks cleaner. → ~tl (talk · contribs) 11:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

markup

I see a lot of HTML in the template. Is it not possible to use wikitable markup when doing the appears-when-needed "magic"? ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Not without some kludgy hacks... → ~tl (talk · contribs) 15:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, OK, I see. The mix of the two styles is very confusing. I'm going to convert it all to regular HTML for the sake of my sanity. ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough... should just be two rows that need changing. → ~tl (talk · contribs) 15:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

spec infobox template test

User:ChristTrekker/test page - what must I do to get rid of the gap around cells and table as a whole? ⇔ ChristTrekker 18:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Figured it out. The "bordered" class no longer applied to the table once I changed the design to use a DIV. The only reason for doing that is to properly use the CAPTION element of the table, which can't display in the middle of a table like the current design does. I don't know if the extra hassle is worth it...easier to add a "caption" class to a table row. I'll go change that now, and you can have a look. ⇔ ChristTrekker 21:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Just been looking at your test template. How about simplifying down os-linux, os-netbsd and os-other into one... something like os-other where they could be listed? That would be better IMHO. → ~tl (talk · contribs) 17:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I considered that. The downside is that we can't automatically categorize on it. But is categorizing on obscure-OS-that-it-can-run reaching the point of trivia...even for a specialty wiki like this? Maybe...you tell me! ⇔ ChristTrekker 17:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
For ease of simplicity, I would say don't bother with the categorising for anything more obscure than "can run Mac OS" and "can run A/UX". → ~tl (talk · contribs) 21:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
OK! ⇔ ChristTrekker 21:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I've made a few changes. Changed pds to slots-pds for consistency and added a slots-other parameter to cover Comm slots, etc. I also changed the OS handling a bit... added an os-other parameter for anything other than Mac OS and A/UX... it's cleaner that way IMHO. Anything else you think needs added? → ~tl (talk · contribs) 23:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
slots-pds - this one really isn't the same as the others. As you pointed out, there only ever is 1 slot. You'd suggested indicating the type of PDS rather than number of slots in this case. So there's an argument in favor of having the naming a bit different. Just a thought. ⇔ ChristTrekker 03:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I thought the whole point of changing nubus to slots-nubus was to group similar parameters with one prefix? Makes more sense to either have it that way or not. I think we should go for either slots-nubus, slots-pds and slots-other or nubus, pds and other-slots. I personally prefer the second style, and it'll be less to change. But it's up to yourself really! → ~tl (talk · contribs) 21:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Consistency is the point, but I only advocate consistency where it makes sense. ☺ Parameters like slots-nubus are going to have integer values indicating number of slots. The PDS parameter is indicating the type of slot, since we know (as you pointed out) that there is only ever one slot if it exists. I can see it both ways: we're still talking about slots, so use the prefix; OTOH slots- itself implies number-possibly-greater-than-one and we're not talking about number (definitely not a number greater than 1) in the PDS case, so don't use the prefix. ⇔ ChristTrekker 21:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I decided to go with the consistent names, even though the fields are used somewhat inconsistently. ⇔ ChristTrekker 14:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I think os-other is too trivial for an infobox; let's limit it to Apple OSs only, and put others in Template:computer specs full. Similarly slots-other; PDS and Nubus cover just about everything, full details can go in the full listing. So is PDS the only issue that blocks making this the new Template:computer specs infobox? Let's come to an agreement. The sooner we can do it, the fewer articles I have to fix. I guess I can go either way. ☺ ⇔ ChristTrekker 19:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I think they're worth including just for completeness. If we only list Mac OS and A/UX (for example) someone glancing at just the infobox will think that's the only OS' that it will run... same with the slots. We're not exactly pushed for space in the infobox. So I say include them. → ~tl (talk · contribs) 21:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
OK! You're right, as long as the infobox isn't longer than a typical screenful we're probably alright. ⇔ ChristTrekker 21:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

All finished?

Are we settled on this as a final template (for the moment anyway)? → ~tl (talk · contribs) 19:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless you can see that I goofed something up. I didn't spend as much time on the full as I did the infobox but I think they are in sync and correct. (The param names anyway. We can change display format any time.) ⇔ ChristTrekker 20:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
It seems fine to me. I made a few changes to the full template to fix some of the parameters you didn't change. I think that it's all correct now. → ~tl (talk · contribs) 20:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I have added a category which should show all the articles that still have the templates with the old parameters in it: Category:Articles with out of date templates. Articles are added if they have fpu, os, pds or nubus set. Should catch most of them and make it easier to see what needs updated. → ~tl (talk · contribs) 07:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

...and I have removed it. TheNeil has updated all of the articles! → ~tl (talk · contribs) 10:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, he's a quick one. ☺ ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

PDS

LEM calls the LCIII-type slot Enhanced LC and that seems to be what we've been going with, too. I think I've sorted out the LC slots for all existing articles. ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

LEM says the IIci and IIfx type slots were 030s as well, electrically the same...which makes sense. You have one type of PDS per CPU: SE ('000), LC ('020 - subsequent models somehow "emulated" the PDS), 030, 040. But I've always known that SE/30 and IIsi cards were only compatible with each other (sometimes) and never any other Mac. So what gives? Is it simply the speed difference that breaks compatibility, or is there something else? If it's just speed, we should mark them all the same, and simply note that speed differences may make cards incompatible between models. We should probably have a Processor Direct Slot article explaining all this stuff... ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

picture size

Regarding the infobox, should we specify "250px" for the image size (as it is now), or use "thumb" and let the users' prefs handle it? ⇔ ChristTrekker z 17:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"thumb" adds a frame and view full size linky thing, which would mess up the layout. I would say keep it the way it is. Unless there's a way to just get the size from a user's preferences... → ~tl (talk · contribs) 14:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
You're right; I'd forgotten about that. Oh well... ⇔ ChristTrekker z 12:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)