Talk:Acorn Electron

Size/dimensions?

The article doesn't mention the dimensions of the Electron. I came here looking for that information, as I needed to render a 3D model of it, but didn't know how big it should be. Would be a useful addition if anyone can find a reference.

Clock frequency

The article notes The Electron is widely misquoted as operating at 1.79 MHz after measurements derived from speed testing against the thoroughly 2 MHz BBC Micro for various pieces of 'common software'

I'm guessing, but I suspect the 1.79 figure is much more "real" that this comment suggests. The number is 1/2 the color clock (I think) frequency of a standard NTSC television. If one does NOT use this speed, the processor will end up accessing memory at the same time as the video circuitry. This is why the Electron ran so much slower when running software from RAM for instance.

So basically it's almost certainly true that the Electron DID run at 1.79 on NTSC, slightly slower on PAL, and perhaps 2.0 on a monitor -- but I doubt even that. The same numbers can be seen throughout the home computer world -- the Atari was the same speed, most other machines exactly half at .96ish.

Maury 12:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, the Electron Advanced User Guide (which could be found in PDF at http://www.astro.livjm.ac.uk/~bbcdocs/essentials/Eaug_pdf.zip but at the minute there seems to be an error accessing that file although the site that provides the link http://www.bbcdocs.com remains online) contains this text on page 212 of the PDF, 207 of the real thing (I have a copy):

Modes 4—6

The processor will normally be running at 2MHz when it first needs to access RAM or peripherals like the 6522. It has to slow down to 1MHz first. This slow down either consists of a PHI OUT low time of 250ns followed by a high time of 750ns, or a low of 250ns followed by a high of l250ns. The particular type of transition which occurs will depend upon the relative phases of the 2MHz and 1MHz clocks, This is illustrated in figure 15.1. Both the 1MHz and 2MHz clocks are internal to the ULA, and are not available outside. They must be generated separately (see later in this section).

Modes 0—3

In these modes, the ULA must have access to the RAM for all the displayed part of a line (40μs out of 64μs in 256 lines out of 312). This doesn’t matter provided that the CPU only wants to access peripherals and the ROM, which it is free to do in the normal way. However, if it tries to access RAM the the ULA will hold it’s clock high for up to 40μs. The overall effect is that the processor can be effectively disabled for up to 40μs. The only way for the processor to obtain priority over the ULA is by an NMI being generated. This will automatically cause the ULA to release the 6502 (and the RAM), but inevitably creates snow on the screen.

Besides specifically stating the 2 and 1 Mhz numbers and giving bus timings to corroborate, it is clear that the Electron outputs its 80 byte pitch display modes (modes 0-3) at a rate of 2 bytes (= between 4 and 16 pixels) every microsecond, so apparently does not conform to the NTSC colour clock in any way.

As a purely incidental point, I wasn't aware that there was ever an NTSC version of the machine. Do you have any information that there was? ThomasHarte 00:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I am right in thinking that the different clock frequences mentioned in the article misleading? Surely the clock isn't actually switching frequences, which would involve some pretty advance chipped design. And doing it whenever the program counter switches between RAM and ROM seems... impractical. The way other machines of the time handled this was simply to lock the bus when the the video was accessing the memory, which is NOT the same as halving the clock frequency.

No, the clock supplied to the CPU does actually change frequency, or even simply stop for up to 40 μs. The ULA is generating both 2 Mhz and 1 Mhz clocks at all times, so it is fairly trivial to just switch between which is being sent to the CPU.

A PDF of the original Advanced User Guide seems to now be available from http://www.bbcdocs.com/ - check "Essentials" then scroll right the way to the bottom of the page. Besides the text directly quoted from it already on this page, to quote a little more from page 207/212 (including some parts of the chunks above):

When the ROM is being accessed, the 6502 runs at the maximum possible speed of 2MHz; PHI OUT is low for 250ns and then high for 250ns ... [w]hen RAM or peripheral devices are accessed, the timing will be highly dependent on the display mode. ... [in modes 4-6 the processor] has to slow down to 1MHz ... [t]he particular type of transition which occurs will depend upon the relative phases of the 2MHz and 1MHz clocks. ... [In modes 0-3] the ULA must have access to the RAM for all the displayed part of a line (40μs out of 64μs in 256 lines out of 312) ... if [the CPU] tries to access RAM then the ULA will hold it’s clock high for up to 40μs. The overall effect is that the processor can be effectively disabled for up to 40μs.

ThomasHarte 11:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

On the topic of the CPU frequency, why is there this 0.5897 MHz figure for accessing RAM? Where does it come from and how is it calculated? As far as I know, the RAM is only ever accessed at 1MHz. Although the CPU may be denied access to RAM by the ULA, this doesn't justify the use of some calculated frequency because it doesn't describe the reality (it either accesses at 1MHz or it doesn't access at all) and because such an indicative figure would only describe a particular scenario and not apply generally. Indeed, it is just like the fictional 1.79 MHz that proliferated for the CPU frequency back in the day. PaulBoddie (talk) 00:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I see that this edit added an initial estimate of 0.3744 MHz which this edit updated to 0.5897 MHz. However, as a footnote indicates in the current page, the CPU can access RAM up to 9728 times per 50Hz field, leading to up to 486400 accesses per second. But still, this isn't actually the access frequency but is instead an indication of bandwidth.

PaulBoddie (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I have now eliminated the erroneous figure in this edit and have updated some footnotes to be more pertinent. I contacted ThomasHarte privately to clarify his edit and he indicated his approval for the change. Some more work is perhaps needed on the footnotes (and much else).

PaulBoddie (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Past and present tense

Can I respectfully suggest that, apart from the history section, the article be phrased in the present tense. I note that the article is phrased in the past tense throughout, which is a little confusing, since the machine still exists. FOr example, the article starts "The Electron was able to load and save from cassette..."... It still can! Clearly the history section of the article should be written in the past tense, but I see no reason why the article should use past tense elsewhere. I'm sure there are probably over half a million examples of the Acorn Electron still in existence! I did not edit the article (apart from two words in the opening paragraph) as I did not author it and do not believe in just going straight in and editing without getting a feel for others opinion. ANd anyway, I don't think my Wikipedia skills are up to it. I'm struggling with the user interface!

I agree with this observation, although there may be some Wikipedia style policy that has people scurrying around changing the tense for no particularly helpful reason. PaulBoddie (talk) 00:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

PaulBoddie and the original poster are right: the MOS:COMPNOW guideline recommends using the present tense: "By default, write articles in the present tense, including those covering ... products or works that have been discontinued." --DavidCary (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for following up! I have to say that it does get quite confusing, though. As I write this, I am formulating an edit to a page about a long-unsupported operating system, but the present tense is indeed used to describe it. However, I have probably used the past tense to describe variants of this particular operating system, as well as planned versions that never emerged. PaulBoddie (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ElectronBASIC.png

Image:ElectronBASIC.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Screenshot gallery

There was (for over 2 years) a small gallery of 12 screenshots depicting a selction of the hundreds of games available showing popular games and different styles of graphics available for the machine. Since the vast majority of Acorn Electrons were used to play games, this is extremely relevant to the article. I see no reason why they should be deleted without debate but that is what has happened and no matter how hard I try to get the user to explain to me why, he simply re-deletes the section and threatens with reporting etc. He did quote one policy that seems to me to entirely justify the images:

WP:NFCC#8 Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function.

The screenshots DO add significantly to the article. A quick glance gives the reader a much better understanding of the graphical capabilities of the computer and the type of programs that were commonly used. The omission of any screenshots IS detrimental to the understanding of the Acorn Electron. There is no text that could as accurately convey the same meaning.

A variety of shots is necessary. Any more would be excessive as they would not all fit on the screen for comparison but as it is, it is a perfect, descriptive illustration of what the Acorn Electron was (and is!). Retro junkie 11:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

A single screenshot might be useful as an illustration of the machine's general capabilities, but multiple screenshots do nothing to further that understanding - they just tell the user that "there was another game with a similar level of graphics that looked like this, and another one, and another one, and nine more".

It would be much more useful to write in detail about the different types of games and graphics supported by the Electron, than to present the reader with a handful of screenshots and leave them to try to make their own conclusions. --McGeddon 11:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The gallery was used in a similar way to the Gaming history section on Commodore_64_software. Would it be better to structure it like that with a couple of lines of text in between? (btw a seperate Acorn Electron software article would be unnecessary). I see the point raised elsewhere about fitting them into the text where appropriate but I still think an at-a-glance overview of 6+years of screenshots adds a better understanding of the range of software eg the increase in detail from simple early games like Arcadians to the complex Holed Out 6 years later. Other shots showed 3D wireframe graphics, isometric 3D (from a game that probably does not merit its own article so that screenshot will be lost), monochrome, different graphic modes, the memory displayed on screen, conversions of popular multi-platform and arcade games (a quick reference for people familiar with other versions of the games) etc and were laid out chronologically.Retro junkie 13:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• No, that usage on the Commodore_64_software is also a violation of our policies. That's very, very heavy overuse of fair use images. --Durin 13:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • OK to be fair, I also think that is overuse. It is also untidy. In comparison, the gallery here was neat and fitted onto one screen. I would still like to be shown the policies that deal with multiple images, galleries etc.Retro junkie 15:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
    • You've been shown already. You disagree with the interpretation. Since a rather large body of users have interpreted it opposite to your interpretation, I recommend you take it up at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. --Durin 15:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
      • WP:NFCC#8 quoted above does not apply. There is nothing there about galleries specifically. It is also purposefully subjective so I don't see how it can be quoted as if it is 'law'. I have told you how I think the gallery was appropriate, I would appreciate if you can spell out why you think it is inappropriate (and possibly replace it with text).Retro junkie 16:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm not going to debate this endlessly. I'm sorry. If you want to learn more about this subject, please go to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content and read. #8 specifically banned galleries some time ago. There was a discussion on removing that specific case because citing examples created a situation where if an example case was not cited, then it was ok (see [1] "example bloat"). Thus, it was removed. But, the policy *did* state it at one time (see #8 as of this revision, and still implies it. This policy does not support your position as you think it does. --Durin 16:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
          • OK, thanks for clearing up where you are coming from but aside from that no longer being included in the policy, it still did not suggest that ALL such galleries should be deleted. I'll quote it here for easy reference: 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. The word 'normally' is important there. As I have tried to put forward, the gallery in question was not merely decorative. It served a genuine purpose.Retro junkie 16:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
            • It served a purpose, yes. But the article isn't amazingly lacking since it gallery's removal. I'm sure Durin would not object to, perhaps, adding one or two photos back in to illustrate, without adding the whole gallery back? --Deskana (apples) 16:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
          • If it's been there two years, like you say, I'm sure glad it's gone now. --Deskana (apples) 16:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
    • OK how about a compromise? I had an Acorn Electron too, and I loved playing games on it, but perhaps 12 screenshots is a bit excessive. How about you pick 2 or 3 screen shots and use them? I suggest perhaps one game shot, showing it in full power, and one non-game shot, and maybe one other exotic shot e.g. a demo scene. It is not necessary to show the different generes of games - all home computers have these, and that is a wiki article in its own right. Also it is not necessary to show games becoming more complex over the years - again that is common to all game-playing computers. Stick to showing what is special about the Electron, its essence. RedTomato 19:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a good case for having shots both of one game from around 1984–5 (illustrating the quality of games available at the height of the Electron's popularity) and one from 1989–90 (illustrating what the machine was ultimately found capable of). —Blotwell 02:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

WD floppy controller?

Was the FDC a WD1770 or a WD1771? I moved the WD1770 page to WD1771 because it was describing the earliest WD FDC chip, which was the WD1771. The WD1770 came much later. But I have no idea which the Acorn used. --Brouhaha (talk) 21:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You can see the Plus 3 used the 1770 on clearer photos of the board available through your favourite image search engine. The article mentions the 8272. I wonder if this should actually be the 1772. IIRC, that had timings more appropriate to 3.5" drives. The Advanced Plus 4 (surely more popular than some of the other expansions mentioned, notably the Plus 2) used the 1772. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.43.135 (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Electron Add-on: MODE 7

The one I have is from Jaffa Systems Ltd. MODE7 Mk I (C) 1987; Same full width as the Acorn PLUS1, used both CRT6845 and SAA5050 was sold as a kit or ready built.

A later revision was the MODE7 Mk II (C) 1989; Smaller card, ONLY used the SAA5050 and not CRT6845.

The Mk II and the MODE7 Emulator ROM both used the Slogger's Turbo or Master 64K for speed!

For pictures of both MODE7 hardware types see:- http://www.bygonebytes.co.uk/Teletext1.jpg then http://www.bygonebytes.co.uk/Mode7.html

To double check this information, look in the Electron User, see the old adverts, then read the reviews!!

There was also another MODE7 add-on advertised in one of many magazines for the BBC / Electron Micros.

>> It's a shame that the main page, keeps deleting this historic facts! << —Preceding unsigned comment added by An Electron User 188.221.111.58 (talk) 11:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Acorn computers#Proposed move/new title

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Acorn computers#Proposed move/new title. Trevj (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Plus 1 Details

This edit adds two things which either need clarifying or aren't completely correct. First of all, it mentions booting from cartridges using Shift-Break: that may be possible under certain circumstances, but it's perhaps a lot more interesting to know that Ctrl-Break (or just powering on) let users boot into language ROMs provided by cartridges; indeed, inserting such a language cartridge would override BASIC. Secondly, it mentions that the Plus 1 cartridge slot exposes user port lines that the expansion connector does not, to which I am somewhat skeptical and for which would like to see a reference. PaulBoddie (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

History and Memory System Speculation

The paragraph dealing with the memory system in the history section is mostly accurate, as far as I know, but there are no citations in there, and some of the stuff is pretty speculative: introducing more RAM using BBC Model B+ techniques was obviously a possibility (where is the citation about the B+ being designed "[a]t the same time... just metres away"?) but would have changed the cost equations. Similarly, observations like "[t]his reduced the effective CPU speed by as much as a factor of 6" need links to actual measurements. PaulBoddie (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I added some clarifications and a reference for the memory access details. Nice to see that the reduction in speed went down from 6 to 4, although in many cases it is only 2, as I have now noted. The BBC B+ section has been removed since it became obvious that it has no particular relevance other than to note that things could have been done differently. PaulBoddie (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

In the section about the Turbo board, there is a remark about the 8K (64Kbit) static RAM chip being as expensive as the four 64Kbit dynamic RAM chips that would be needed to double the memory access bus width. The linked picture shows a 6264P-15 part whereas the DRAM chips are 4164-150 parts. The remark is probably accurate: one price list I have found indicates a price of $16.95 for the SRAM and around $4 for each DRAM chip, but this is from May 1985. Availability of 64Kbit SRAM parts was probably very limited nearer to the Electron's release, meaning that the unit pricing might have been even more prohibitive, whereas the 64Kbit DRAM part pricing had largely stabilised by then. It might also be interesting to consider Turbo board designs involving 6116 chips, their feasibility, and pricing differences. As far as I can tell, once 4164 pricing had stabilised, 6116 SRAM prices were largely similar to 4164 DRAM prices, meaning that the 8K of SRAM would indeed cost about the same as another 32K of DRAM. PaulBoddie (talk) 23:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Edits and References without Sources

I see that there have been some "references" added that don't actually refer to any sources. For example, this one about the flashing cursor. It would be nice if actual source details were included: making something a reference does not make it a source in and of itself. Also, there is a fair amount of content that doesn't have any citations which should be cleaned up. PaulBoddie (talk) 13:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

ending Acorn's home-computer business

If the failure of the Electron "ended" Acorn's home computer business, the could somebody please tell me which Acorn it was that sold me an A3000 (Archimedes equivalent to the Electron), plus released the A3010 that was SO aimed at home users that it included a UHF modulator inside?
I find this "ending Acorn's home-computer business" comment to be misleading. 2.14.152.158 (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I suppose some other word might be more appropriate. Certainly, Acorn disengaged from various retail channels and focused more heavily on dealerships from the mid-1980s, but even then there were still going to be sales to home users, and I imagine that the advertising and promotional literature for things like the Master series (particularly the Compact) would emphasise home or "home office" use. (This wasn't a strategy unique to Acorn: according to "The Amstrad Story", Amstrad also sought to change their retail emphasis from volume retailers like Dixons to more specialised venues.) As for the A3000 and A3010, the latter having a UHF modulator (and being bundled with a game, having joystick ports, and so on) is very revealing about the target audience. The A3000 was also attractive for home use, although I suspect that it was mostly intended as a cheaper and simpler product for education than the three-box models that came before it. PaulBoddie (talk) 12:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, I've now replaced the remark about the "home-computer business" (and removed the hyphenation where the term is used), adding a news reference which explicitly mentions the home computing audience intended for the Master Compact which is, of course, a later machine (and probably confused with an Electron successor by the rumour mill of the era). Personally, I think this article (and also the Acorn Computers one) has far too much narrative-peddling with the references not actually substantiating the text, so I guess there will be plenty more edits to come replacing assertions with substantiated observations. PaulBoddie (talk) 21:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Acorn Electron with five expansions.

I offer an image of my Acorn Electron with Jaff Mode 7, Slogger Rom Box, Advanced Plus one with Advanced Battery Backed RAM in front socket (had a prototype Serial Port card for fitting here when required) and an Advanced Plus 4 (AP4) interface (one of the first made) in the rear socket of the Plus 1. This AP4 has been used with a succession of flopply drives including double sided double drive 40/80 switchable.

The image is on my web page at:

Lionel Smith's Acorn Electron — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.233.26 (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Release Date

The release date listed is actually the announcement date. The History section is vague, but it seems as though none were released before Xmas 83, which is the lore. Jerri Kohl (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Register article claims

There is some widespread citation of various Register articles about old computers including the Electron. Although apparently thoroughly researched, the storytelling nature of these articles does not always lend itself to verification of various assertions, and this results in a bunch of claims fitting a particular narrative being copy-pasted into Wikipedia without any scrutiny. Given how much people have been leaning on the narrative of the Register piece about the Electron, there may need to be several claims addressed, and these might be discussed below. PaulBoddie (talk) 22:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

"How much the retailer paid was never disclosed, but it amounted to less than it had cost Acorn to make them in the first place." But there is no actual contemporary evidence provided in the article. In various places, the disposal to retailers will be mentioned in the contemporary press, and it is probable that machines were acquired below cost, but it would be useful to see the details of such transactions plus evidence of the various sales promotions that occurred. PaulBoddie (talk) 22:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

"Elk" nickname

Hi. I've added a reference to the "Elk" nickname to the history section. Feel free to improve this if there's a way to mention it less clumsily, but please don't remove it altogether as over-zealous wikipedia editors kept removing a listing for the electron on the 'Elk' disambiguation page. In my view the listing in the 'Elk' disambiguation page is needed because whilst I've no wish to promote the nickname, people often talk about "The Elk" and if people have never heard of the nickname they may be confused what computer it refers to and look it up on wikipedia. The page for the BBC micro does include a similar reference for its "Beeb" nickname. Thanks. 82.27.207.101 (talk) 07:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The reference added to the top of the article is strongest, although there should be plenty of contemporary references using the term even from the earliest days of the machine, maybe even from before its release. Interestingly, there is also a referenced article that has "Elk" in its title, which would probably be a form of evidence, but I seem to remember A&B Computing using the term extensively. I'm not sure that any of the other references added later in the article are particularly strong: I would have thought that Wiktionary references would not be good enough for Wikipedia; the TV Tropes article is well written in parts but accuracy issues with some articles there are worrying (check out their Archimedes page with links to completely unrelated games, amongst other things) and it is a bit odd that there are computer articles on a site about TV tropes, but maybe they are branching out; the nosher.net link takes us to an index page and not any particular advert. I also think that introducing the term early is a good idea - having it later on doesn't make as much sense - and we probably don't need to have four references to establish the basis of the term. --PaulBoddie (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Thinking about this further, I don't think that using Wikipedia and Wiktionary as mutually supporting references is what either of these sites want. What Wiktionary seems to want is "three independent instances spanning at least a year" of the term, and Wikipedia is only to be used to provide quotations, not as evidence. So, I think that references from "back in the day" would be needed at the very least. I've updated the article a bit to take these concerns into consideration. Sorry to remove the other links, but as noted above, one was broken, one linked to Wiktionary, and the other one was to TV Tropes. If the Nosher one could be tracked down, it would help solidify the case for Wiktionary inclusion, so I would recommend doing that. Meanwhile, just searching Acorn Users on archive.org for "Elk" yields plenty of other sources, and I think that the A&B Computing scans will also provide good results. PaulBoddie (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi PaulBoddie and thanks for your efforts to improve the citations. I only got involved earlier because of an addition to the Elk DAB page, when there was no mention of Elk in the article. The IP editor added the mention of Elk with the Wiktionary ref, which I agree is not adequate, hence my attempts to find a few more citations. It looks as if the citer tool didn't format the Nosher citation correctly and I failed to notice - but anyway here is the correct link: https://nosher.net/archives/computers/comm_008-acorn?idx=Acorn. Wayback Machine doesn't want to archive it, unfortunately. Whatever in the lead should also be covered and expanded in the body (per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY - citations not strictly needed in the lead, unless contentious), but I'm happy to let you do what you think fit. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello Laterthanyouthink! I don't know what the deal is with the citer tool, not using it myself (is it any good?), but I guess the Nosher page provides some useful information and I am certain I have read through it before. Strangely, despite the extensive referencing on the Nosher page, the author doesn't link to the origins of the nickname, but I think I have managed to do this in the article. Generally, the Nosher coverage is pretty good - I trawled lots of old articles when updating this article and managed to find a lot of the citations independently, only noticing this when revisiting the Nosher coverage afterwards - but some of the narrative seems a bit incoherent, and I tried to make the chronology clearer in this article and to let the actual sources come through. Generally, with regard to the Electron, there is far too much editorialising when people try and summarise the history. For instance, it is interesting to read what Guy Kewney thought (and more interesting than other well-known commentators of the era), but his insight had limits, too, as anyone who has perused his PCW column will be all too aware. I do like the way Nosher blends its topics, although this does lead to a degree of drift away from the actual main topic (as can be seen in the linked article). Anyway, it's not really up to me to decide what is right, even though I now feel rather invested in this page after a lot of tidying up. PaulBoddie (talk) 16:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi PaulBoddie. This is the citer tool I was referring to - I find it a great timesaver, although (as evidenced by the Nosher confusion), its results are not always 100% and do need checking and tweaking sometimes. I'm afraid that I cannot comment on your no doubt astute observations, because I have not looked into this topic and must admit that old computers or not high enough on my list of most interesting topics to edit to warrant diving back into the article, so under pressure of time I will continue dabbling in what I do best and leave you to improve this article. :-) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Hardware expansions section size and sequencing

I see that the hardware expansions section was moved to the end to prioritise the technical specifications. However, the specifications do appear in the infobox and are therefore quite prominent already, and if you look at the Commodore 64 article, which is quite well formulated, it also has the detailed specifications towards the end.

As for the size of the section itself, the Electron market was driven by the availability of expansions. Look in magazines like Electron User and much of the content consists of articles and advertisements featuring expansions. One can argue that expansions were central to the appeal of the machine, given that the Electron itself only offered dedicated ports for displays and cassette storage, with the expansion connector featuring prominently in coverage of the machine. Some expansions also provided remedies for what were described as shortcomings of the machine, so I think they do deserve some attention in the article.

In principle, a separate article covering expansions would be reasonable, but I haven't found any articles to provide guidance. The ZX Spectrum similarly relied on expansions, but its article only has a fairly cursory section on expansions for that machine.

Another observation I can make is that the relocation of the section has now put the Merlin M2105 coverage near the very end along with the emulation section, which seems arbitrary. Also, the earlier section ordering put more tangential and trivial details towards the end. For example, although the design team deserve credit for their work, I don't think the ROM credits should be dropped in towards the start of the article. That is just inviting someone to come along and complain about the overly technical details about the origins of that content.

As I have experienced in recent times with other articles, I just wish that people would discuss substantial changes to articles first. After all, a lot of effort has been spent producing the actual content of the article, and then a lot more effort seems to be necessary to preserve the integrity of that content. It makes me wonder why anyone should bother contributing to Wikipedia, and it also explains the dilapidated state of many articles these days. PaulBoddie (talk) 13:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I have now looked at a few other articles for guidance. Along with the ZX Spectrum article, the articles for various consoles are structured so that the following topics appear in this general order:

1. History, including the release or launch
2. Hardware, technical specifications
3. Peripherals, accessories, add-ons
4. Variants or variations
5. Software or games library
6. Reception, legacy

The Sega Genesis article is an exception, elevating the software topic before add-ons and variations, unlike articles for the Master System, Sega Saturn, Nintendo Entertainment System, PlayStation (console), Atari 2600, Atari 5200, and Atari 7800. However, the Super Nintendo Entertainment System and Nintendo 64 articles also place games before peripherals and accessories.

Generally, the console articles are a lot more consistent and more competently edited than many microcomputer articles, making them better templates for guiding any restructuring of this article. PaulBoddie (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)