Talk:Acorn Electron

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Past and present tense

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:ElectronBASIC.png

message: 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)
thread_title: WD floppy controller?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Electron Add-on: MODE 7 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Plus 1 Details 

message: 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)
thread_title:  History and Memory System Speculation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Edits and References without Sources 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ending Acorn's home-computer business 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Acorn Electron with five expansions. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Release Date 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Register article claims 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Hi  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)
replies: text:  Hello ! 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)
replies: text: Hi . 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)
thread_title: "Elk" nickname