| Click here to select a new forum. |
| Wiki Machine Specs Setup... What do you think? |
Posted by: funkytoad on 2007-07-23 12:16:00
Okay, decision time.
How do we want to setup the specs?
I have seen it in a couple of diffrent ways.
We could do the specs in a table like this: http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_classic/stats/mac_classic_ii.html
We could also list them like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_Classic_II
Or, we could try some of your ideas. Lets hear 'em!
|
Posted by: ChristTrekker on 2007-07-23 13:18:25
Closer to the Wikipedia example, IMO. I don't think it is necessary to detail the specs as exhaustively as Everymac does.
I was going to work on the specs template (see it's Talk page) but wasn't sure what direction to take.
I'd like to use the template to automatically categorize the various models in useful ways. Practically, this relies on having a couple Mediawiki extensions installed.
This conversation could rightly move to the talk page for the specifications template.
|
Posted by: MacMan on 2007-07-23 13:23:10
I am happy with either. Given that so many other pages (and MacTracker) can be used to find Mac specs, it may be a good idea to concentrate on longhand descriptions, history, technical tips etc for each model as well as a list / table of specifications.
|
Posted by: funkytoad on 2007-07-23 13:49:05
A list would probably be easier.
|
Posted by: ~tl on 2007-07-23 14:02:58
Hmm, I don't know. Wouldn't it be worth having full specs for completeness? Also, some sites miss certain details. For example, most list the Apple specified max amount of RAM, but sometimes a machine can support more than that -- useful information. I think going for completeness should be a goal. I'd also like to see model numbers, part numbers, etc included.
As for layout, either has it's benefits, but I'm guessing a list would be a bit more logical.
This conversation could rightly move to the talk page for the specifications template. IMHO it would be better to keep as much of the conversation on the forums as possible, at least until we get the basic structure outlined. But if you want to use the talk pages then feel free.
|
Posted by: ChristTrekker on 2007-07-23 14:28:19
Whatever info ends up being included, I'd like to see it formatted as an "infobox" (in the Wikipedia parlance): smaller text, floated to the right.
|
Posted by: ~tl on 2007-07-23 14:30:40
I agree. Though, how about having an infobox with the essential specs, then a fuller version (possibly in table form) in the text of the page?
|
Posted by: Quadraman on 2007-07-23 14:33:25
I wonder if Dan Knight can sue Wikipedia for republishing his material. THat Classic II entry is a direct cut and paste from LEM.
|
Posted by: funkytoad on 2007-07-23 14:42:21
I agree. Though, how about having an infobox with the essential specs, then a fuller version (possibly in table form) in the text of the page? I like that idea a lot!
I wonder if Dan Knight can sue Wikipedia for republishing his material. THat Classic II entry is a direct cut and paste from LEM. Who knows, maybe someone asked. But I doubt it. |
Posted by: ~tl on 2007-07-23 14:43:07
I wonder if Dan Knight can sue Wikipedia for republishing his material. THat Classic II entry is a direct cut and paste from LEM. Not sure if he could sue them, but he could get the material removed...
|
Posted by: funkytoad on 2007-07-23 17:07:37
Does he know that his material is there?
|
Posted by: ~tl on 2007-07-24 00:11:54
Does he know that his material is there? Well either he doesn't know, or doesn't have a problem with it!
|
Posted by: MacG4 on 2007-07-24 07:02:27
i voted for the list idea
|
Posted by: macintoshman on 2007-08-23 20:16:30
I prefer a simple list. Simple is good. :b&w:
|
Posted by: equill on 2007-08-24 08:48:26
I favour list form, but with all related specs in the same row, as EveryMac has them, but more so. And I favour completeness ahead of skeletal presentation. Perhaps other sites have specs, not always accurate, and not always complete, but nothing beats having the lot in a single window in front of you, tabs and Exposé (or similar) notwithstanding.
And by complete I mean complete in ways that other sites are not. Max. RAM not as of date of release but as of now. Newer processors that can be supported. All CPU upgrades that ever were. Logic board upgrades and shared board form factors. 68K Macs are a finite group for this kind of thoroughness, and the data need to be preserved before they evanesce into the ether.
de
|
Posted by: ~tl on 2007-08-24 08:55:19
I favour list form, but with all related specs in the same row, as EveryMac has them, but more so. And I favour completeness ahead of skeletal presentation. Perhaps other sites have specs, not always accurate, and not always complete, but nothing beats having the lot in a single window in front of you, tabs and Exposé (or similar) notwithstanding.
And by complete I mean complete in ways that other sites are not. Max. RAM not as of date of release but as of now. Newer processors that can be supported. All CPU upgrades that ever were. Logic board upgrades and shared board form factors. 68K Macs are a finite group for this kind of thoroughness, and the data need to be preserved before they evanesce into the ether.
de That's what we're going for! What we've got at the moment looks something like this:
http://68kmla.org/wiki/Macintosh_II
There's a bit of ongoing discussion (albeit only between me and Christrekker) about what should actually be included here:
http://68kmla.org/wiki/Template_talk:Computer_specs_full
So feel free to come and add your suggestions!
|
| 1 |