Talk:ZX Spectrum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article ZX Spectrum has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
September 19, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
September 19, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept
Current status: Good article


"it never took off as a distribution method due to worries about the quality of the cartridges and piracy"

The principal problem was the cost of writing onto the cartridges. Software distributors used the same recording machinery as was used for audio cassettes with cassettes. Conventional disks had similar problems to microdrives for prerecording, that's why they cost so much more than cassetttes, they were usually recorded by hand. Microdrives were too slow for that. (talk) 02:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

video game console or computer[edit]

Which is/was the Spectrum?--ILoveSky (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Was a computer, still is a computer. Doesn't meet the criteria for a console. a_man_alone (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Designed to be a personal computer, not a games console, but very widely used as a games console, nevertheless. Letdorf (talk) 12:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC).
100% a Computer, it was always intended to be a computer, to the point Clive Sinclair absolutely despised that it was seen as a gaming system. But easiest way of telling the difference between a computer and a console. (bar the odd exception) Consoles do not have a keyboard. --Guru Larry (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


There's a sentence at the end of the +3 section

The +3 was the final official model of the Spectrum to be manufactured, remaining in production until December 1990. Although still accounting for one third of all home computer sales in the UK at the time, production of the model was ceased by Amstrad at that point.

Reading it, one might get the impression that the +3 was "the model" referred to that "accounted for one third of all home computer sales" and which was discontinued. I'm almost certain that this is misleading phrasing and, if correct (and a citation would be nice too), it's *meant* to refer to the Spectrum family as a whole. Right? Ubcule (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Without a source, who's to say? These kind of statistics really need sources. Letdorf (talk) 11:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC).
According to this reference - [1] which is a reputable source, sales of the +3 were halted in December 1990, but the +2 continued. I will change the main article. (talk) 07:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Note that that quote says "The +2 will continue" but it refers to the +2B, not the original +2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

What to do about +2B Section[edit]

The section on the +2B contains a reference to an FAQ entry on the Planet Sinclair site which is demonstrably false (see my post on the subject on the World of Spectrum forums [2]).

I'm rather stuck here because on one hand I hate to see inaccuracies perpetuated as fact (verbatim quotes from wikipedia appear all over the net like a rash these days...), but on the other I know that I can't just wade in violating Wikipedia:NOR just because I think I'm right. Until a "Reliable Source" publishes something on the subject I don't see what can be done within the rules of wikipedia. (talk) 03:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

In the presence of doubt, but the absence of an alternative reliable source, one can always just delete the offending assertion. How about just describing the +2B as "a later minor revision of the +2A"? Regards, Letdorf (talk) 13:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC).
I just realised that the service manuals make a great source so have updated the +2A and +2B sections accordingly (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

7.3 Notable developers[edit]

I am not sure Sid Meyers (Civilization) began his carreer with ZXSpectrum, but he surelly contribuited some titles (e.g., Silent Service). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Sales chart succession[edit]

Suggest we label number one games per the template used for singles/album charts (data would be as published in Your Sinclair magazine, complete archives of which are available)

Preceded by
"A Little Bit More" by 911
UK Singles Chart number-one single
January 24, 1999 - January 30, 1999
Succeeded by
"You Don't Know Me" by Armand Van Helden featuring Duane Harden
Preceded by
Carrying Your Love with Me by George Strait
Butterfly Kisses (Shades of Grace) by Bob Carlisle
Billboard 200 number-one album
May 24 - June 14, 1997
July 12–19, 1997
Succeeded by
Wu-Tang Forever by Wu-Tang Clan
The Fat of the Land by The Prodigy


The ZX Spectrum community is still very active in producing new software with around 100 new titles listed for 2011 on World of Spectrum. Worth mentioning? --Zagrebo (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I came to this page and was surprised that there wasn't more mention of how well-loved the ZX still is. (talk) 01:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Lack of citations[edit]

This entire article is full of inaccuracies. It has clearly been compiled from hearsay. If any of the editors would like to do something about this then please drop into the #zx IRC channel on and ask for cheveron. Someone will point you in my direction and I'd be happy to provide accurate information with citations. What I won't do is edit the article myself as my correction (with citations) to the erroneous naming of T/S 2000 BASIC in the Sinclair BASIC article was reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious - I checked the Sinclair BASIC article, and can find no reversions that you speak of. The only ref that has been added regarding Basic is not to the TS2000 section, but to the 128K ROM here. As your IP has only made one edit - the one above - it's hard to validate your statements, especially the initial claim that the article is inaccurate when confronted with the number of contributors and references. Still, please comment, and let's try to improve both articles. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Page usage[edit]

The effect of a front-page link from Google and loads of media coverage: [3] - 246,658 page views yesterday alone. To put that in context, if it had been a today's Featured Article, it would have been the sixth most-viewed one of all time after Emma Watson. Well done everyone! Prioryman (talk) 06:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

"Spectrum +" or "Spectrum+"?[edit]

Should it be "Spectrum +" or "Spectrum+"? The higher models have a space before the plus: "Spectrum +2", "ZX Spectrum +2A", "ZX Spectrum +2B" and "ZX Spectrum +3". --Mortense (talk) 10:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

"Spectrum+" - both the box and the unit itself (as pictured on the page) have no space between the "Spectrum" and the "+"
Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
That's because that's precisely how it was marketed. There is no need for us to attempt to impose some consistency here when this distinction is clearly made in reliable sources. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Depends on your definition of consistency - thanks to Mortense's edit here we now have consistency with how it was marketed, but those with slightly less familiarity with the subject may well have questioned the validity of such a change - hence it's a good question to ask. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The question is whether it is actually remarkable enough to mention specifically in the prose. I dare say that the majority of our readers are familiar enough with the degree of abuse heaped upon the language by those involved in product branding these days to simply take the names as they are presented and not to quibble about them. If a reliable source can be found which specifically points this distinction out I'd certainly have no objection to adding it, but other than that I believe we should probably simply rely on presenting it accurately and allow our readers to note the distinction themselves. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The obvious difference is that ZX Spectrum+ was a Sinclair Research product, the ZX Spectrum +2 and +3 were Amstrad products. Letdorf (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC).

From a performance point of view, concerning the BASIC Interpreter[edit]

my clone, a HC 91+ produced in Romania, works with abt 100 hll instr./ 1 second. i think this computer shoulded do like a few thousands up to 10000 hll/second... the interpreter doesent have necessarely work with BNForm , in order to dramatically enhance speed, there is anything 2 do abt graphics n transcedent functions that might use some precomputed value in order to works much faster than .05s for a sinus, for example ... i think this computer worth a remake oriented on BASIC speed :-) (talk) 08:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

It's interesting to hear what people have done with clones, but unless you can attribute this to a reliable source, it can't go in the article, I'm afraid. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

well, idk how to put this, there could b a way to work with enhanced resolution 4 video games 4 example without actually working the microprocessors at this task which could b a bit too much 4 an 8080 4 example or its mem, i think there is a chance to interpolate details, probabily with the help of video automata to obtain better resolutions (2*x X 2*y X 2*frames) .there is also no such speed difference between a good interpreter and compiling code... this kinda hypotetic computers might serve as reper when wedd like to evaluate if modern age processing possibilities are used at their real value... ok, :) (talk) 07:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

MOS:ITAL and Foxes and Rabbits[edit]

All, is the software known as 'Foxes and Rabbits' primarily categorized as a simulation or as a game? If it is not a game, then MOS:ITAL says it is not italicized. If it is a game, then it is italicized. I presume some editors here have a better understanding of what the software actually is/does. It matters to the article's formatting as a GA on its way to FA. I haven't an opinion, so I thought I'd ask.

The issue occurs in para 2 of Software. That para also has capitalization problems. I'm not aware of any normal cases in English sentences where foxes, rabbits, or tape recorders are proper nouns.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 17:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It's actually called Evolution, it was on the Horizons tape that came with the Spectrum. Its not a game, its a mathematical modeling program, or simulation, but not a game. - X201 (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
@X201: Thanks, that sounds accurate to me. Many programs have colloquial names that are not their proper names (NetWare is still not named Novell, to this day. "What do you run?" "I run Novell." "Wow, you run a whole company on your computer?") This confounds guidelines such as WP:COMMONNAME royally.
The issue of the software's actual name is not one I can address as an editor or expert on the issue (because I am not one).
Nonetheless, the issue I brought up regards game software versus all other types of software: Games always get to be italicized and all other software (regardless of whether we have the name correct or not) does not.
As I stare at the paragraph, I realize it addresses separate issues, and can be broken in two.
A cite for this simulation program would be nice, if someone knows where to find it.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Cite the cassette inlay itself with {{Cite AV media notes| title = Psion Horizons Software starter pack| others = | year = 1982| type = Cassette inlay| publisher = Psion| quote = EVOLUTION or Foxes and Rabbits This program shows in simple BASIC how complex mathematical differential equations can be solved on even a microcomputer like the Spectrum.}} There's also a Wikipedia article about it, Horizons: Software Starter Pack that could do with being linked to. - X201 (talk) 08:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 Done. Works for me. Thanks.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Forgive this quick unformatted comment... shouldn't be the Horizons: Software Starter Pack be merged in the ZX Spectrum main subject ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Why on Earth should it be? Horizons: Software Starter Pack is a separate entity from the ZX Spectrum. There is no need to merge it to this article just because it runs on the Spectrum. We don't generally merge articles about software to their respective computer articles anywhere else either. JIP | Talk 18:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Attribute clash[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to not merge. The1337gamer (talk) 10:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Article is completely unsourced and in any sources I could find, "attribute clash" is the subject of independent, dedicated commentary. It is most notable in association with the ZX Spectrum, which already has a small section on the idea. It follows that it should be merged there and if any more sources somehow appear in the future, it can always spin out summary style. Tangentially, the images in this article right now are an egregious violation of WP:NFCC#3. – czar 22:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose Let's just say that my opinion of the merge proposer's familiarity with the topic was somewhat coloured by their undiscussed "merge" of the article being to add a screen shot from an MSX to the Spectrum article (a good article).
If you're not aware of this, the MSX is not a Spectrum. It has a different video system, it suffers different limitations. It certainly does not belong pasted into the Spectrum article.
Attribute clash was a major characteristic of the Spectrum and had a defining role in its games. It warrants a substantial article, an article that we already have at Attribute clash. A level of detail that would be UNDUE in the Spectrum article itself.
The question of sourcing is a good one, but this topic was hugely covered in the 30 year old sources that cover it. If anyone wants to improve the article by addressing that, they need access to the 30 year old computer magazines and a few books (sorry, but mine were recycled years ago). Even without though, it's a profoundly negative change to the encyclopedia to delete this article, as has been tried so far. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
The point was to show the effect. It was a bold edit and you removed it—that's fine. What sources do you have that will let attribute clash stand as its own article? By the way, many of the magazines from this era are online, but a search for "attribute clash" revealing only passing mentions does not bode well. An alternative would be a merge to Glossary of video game terms. – czar 22:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - for exactly the same reasons as Andy Dingley puts forward. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - it would be like merging Computer virus with Microsoft Windows just because it has the most of it. Here are a few refs. to other computers with the effect [4] [5] [6]. --Frodet (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per everyone else. Attribute clash is not a feature unique to the ZX Spectrum. Heck, even the Commodore 64 has it. JIP | Talk 13:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on ZX Spectrum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


Note that the 2 cited sources are invalid. One is a Youtube upload of an Italian TV advert - irrelevant as this is English Wikipedia. The other one only shows that the pronunciation was used in a British TV advert. NOT that the worldwide pronunciation is as spoken in this advert. I can find Youtube videos that show British people pronuncing "Z80" differently to American people. Please show a valid source that proves worldwide the pronunciation of "ZX Spectrum" is as keeps being added. For the record I pronounce it in the British way, and it would be nice if everyone did so, but I am sure that Americans don't. Rapido (talk) 12:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

You kind of prove the point and necessity of the British pronunciation in your own edit above. You are most likely quite correct that Americans don't pronounce it in the British - that is "correct" - way, but this is probably because the method of correct pronunciation is being removed from the article, so they are under the impression that it is indeed the "Zee-Ecks Spectrum". You are incorrect in one small way - the pronunciation is not for a worldwide market, but for the market of origin, or most influential market, and in this case it's the British market. In cases such as this it's particularly important to show the pronunciation in th ehome market, given the national difference between the letter "Z" for the Americans and British.
As examples, have a look at the Subaru page which indicates pronunciation that any British person would never use, as british pronunciation has a short "a", not a long one. Also, see the Nissan article, which covers all bases and includes American, British and Japanese pronunications.
And as an aside - while it's discussed, as per WP:BRD the edit should stay in place - so I've reverted it again. As this is obviously a contentious issue, it should be kept in the state when the first revert was done - Bold - Revert - Discuss. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
You didn't cover the fact that one of the "sources" is in Italian, and doesn't even pronounce "Zed Ex" in the British fashion at all! The pronounciation of Subaru immediately follows the Japanese text, so is implied to be a reference to the Japanese pronunciation. What's interesting is that the pronunciation of Subaru and Nissan are given in completion, however the pronunciation for "ZX Spectrum" isn't given, only the first two letters. It also doesn't state that this is a British pronounciation. This leads to the impression that there is only one correct way to pronounce these 2 letters in English, which isn't the case at all. As such the reverted version is incorrect, and hardly encyclopaedic. Rapido (talk) 09:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
You are edit warring. You need to look up The wrong version and understand that even if you're of the opinion that the incorrect version is in place - it stays there while we are discussing it. If you are proved correct, then it can be removed, but not before.
I would suggest that it is only necessary to provide an explanation of the pronunciation of "ZX" because it is pronounced differently in different countries - much in the same way that Nissan, and Subaru are used because they are pronounced differently in different countries.
You are correct that "It also doesn't state that this is a British pronounciation" - so a better solution would be to clarify that this is the british pronunciation, much in the same way that when you state "This leads to the impression that there is only one correct way to pronounce these 2 letters in English, which isn't the case at all" you are correct in that statement, but when this is a BrEng article, it is the only correct way to pronounce it in British English, so should be stated as such. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
To throw my penny in I'd also add that, if the issue hinges on a belief that the current sources are insufficient, the first step should be to look into whether better sources can be gained (and give time for that to happen), rather than stating they are insufficient and immediately yanking the section from the article. Aawood (talk) 12:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
ZX Spectrum is made up of two letters and a dictionary word, all with defined pronunciations in the English dictionary (albeit pronunciations which vary between British and American dictionaries), unlike Subaru and Nissan, so I don't think a direct comparison should be made. I am also worried that the addition of the pronunciation key was made (some time ago) without any logical reason. Perhaps snobbishness or patriotism? I don't know. But similar articles for computers with names made up of dictionary words are not given a pronunciation key (e.g. Jupiter Ace, Commodore 64 and Apple II come to mind). So why is it needed at all? Rapido (talk) 13:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
It is a product, and products have specific pronunciations, Like why Sega isn't pronounces Seega, Nestle isn't prnounced Nessel, nor La-z-boy isn't pronounced Lay-Zed-Boy. and don't straw man in snobbery, by your definition you can pronounce anything as you see fit. (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Nestle IS pronounced "Nessel" by a large number of British population - that was the pronunciation used on Nestle adverts until the 1980s, although no longer used by the company. And I have heard "Seega" too, although I've not heard of "La-z-boy" before. Please provide a genuine citation showing the "specific pronunciation" in the English language. Rapido (talk) 10:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
We have provides sources, International adverts where it's pronounced ZED X, what more do you want? It's called a ZED X Spectrum. Show me where it's meant to be pronounced as Zee X? Which is why the pronunciation has been there. (talk) 10:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
The "international" advert is in Italian, and gives the Italian pronunciation of the letters 'ZX', far unlike the British pronunciation. Not sure how that is relevant to the matter at hand. "ZX Spectrum" isn't like your other examples with are non-dictionary words. In fact if you ask an American to pronounce Nestle, you'll get a completely different pronunciation from what any British person would say. So how is that a "specific pronunciation"? Rapido (talk) 14:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────A quick comment, but as I said before - you're proving the necessity of having the pronunciation by confirming that - once again - Americans pronounce words differently to the UK. Due to this difference, it's important to specify the "correct" method or pronunciation, much in the same way (as another example) Jaguar Cars specify the UK method of pronunciation, which is very different to the American "Jagwar" method. Moreover, to quickly address your comments that "similar articles for computers with names made up of dictionary words are not given a pronunciation key" - you are absolutely correct, but the ZX Spectrum is not made up of dictionary words, but letters - and one specific letter which is pronounced differently in America to the UK - and that's the primary reason why it's necessary here, but not for your other examples. I'm also curious as to this statement - "Please provide a genuine citation showing the 'specific pronunciation' in the English language." - this article adheres to BREng, so are you somehow suggesting that "Zed Ecks" is incorrect British English? Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Well in light of yours and User:Aawood's comments, I have added the pronunciation for the complete name of the product (ZX Spectrum), and found that Sir Clive Sinclair pronounces it, quite expectedly, in the same way that the letters and word are pronounced in British English (e.g. interview in Time Shift 'Hard Drive Heaven'). Since Sir Clive named the product, I think that's fair, and I am still not convinced that an Italian advert is a legitimate source. Rapido (talk) 10:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

From my talk page[edit]

Can you check out that Rapido guy on the ZX Spectrum topic please? He keeps reverting our edits. (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I've already warned him twice here, and here. Although he's already at 3RR - one more revert and it's unequivocal. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
"That Rapido guy" here. I received both warnings, however what's unusual is that the above IP user hasn't received any warnings by yourself which suggests bias in reverting the articles. I don't suppose you have appointed yourself the ZX Spectrum article "president"?. The warning says users are expected to collaborate and try to reach a consensus. A lot of talk is happening, but not much consensus is being reached. Just other users reverting and insisting they are right. I would ask for an explanation of "he's already at 3RR - one more revert and it's unequivocal". Can you show me where I have reverted more than 3 times in 24 hours? Or is that just a factually inaccurate comment. Rapido (talk) 14:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi That Rapido Guy. The IP editor hasn't received warnings because he's only reverted once, which isn't edit-warring. I've reverted twice, while asking you to abide by BRD - which you are refusing to do, but that's your choice of poor etiquette - and it's not normal to template oneself.
With regard to your question of "Can you show me where I have reverted more than 3 times in 24 hours? Or is that just a factually inaccurate comment." I can't because you haven't reverted more than 3 times, so that's a silly thing to ask me to do - however if you read Wikipedia:Edit_warring carefully, which I advise you do, it clearly states that 3RR is a bright line, but that you do not have to transgress it to be edit warring: "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached", "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so" and finally ""but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring""
With regard to the discussion - on the very same pages it also reminds an edit warrior that "There is no deadline" - what's the rush, big fella?
Consensus has not been reached yet, but that doesn't mean it won't be. If you'd stop being a blinkered editwarrior, we could maybe stop with the accusations of ownership, and get on with finding some sources - although I have to say I'm so amused by your accusation of being the "ZX Spectrum article President" that I may break 6 year vow of abstinence, and create a userbox just for that. Honestly, such an accusation of ownership to an experienced editor genuinely made me laugh. I thank you. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Additional - just checked, and I'm only ranked 6th in the ZX Spectrum contributions, so not President. Chancellor perhaps? Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with ZX Spectrum Vega+[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was no consensus for merger. ApLundell (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Other models are described in this article, so I don't see why this model should have its own article. Adam9007 (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree, unless there is a compelling reason to the contrary. KConWiki (talk) 03:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Support. Only split when necessitated by the sources. czar 18:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Vega is a ZX Spectrum emulator in a case that resembles the looks of the original computer for (rich) retro fans. It's not even a clone, as you can't neither type a program or load a game from your old tapes, so it doesn't qualify as a ZX Spectrum to me. --Tactica amiga (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose - The Vega+ article is not properly sourced and is badly written. If that changes, then I see no reason not to merge it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
There's no content to merge, but the title can be redirected, if it pertains czar 23:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Merge to List of ZX Spectrum clones instead - We normally don't keep things hanging about "just in case" unless there's an immediate prospect of that changing. At present, there's not enough information to warrant its own article. If that changes, it can be converted into a proper article, though I'd probably just have the one for both Vega and Vega+. (And yes, I agree that they're just jumped-up emulators, but I guess the marketing distinguishes them).
Arguably, the merge should be into List of ZX Spectrum clones (rather than the parent article) if one isn't being too nitpicky about what counts as a "clone". Ubcule (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
DISAGREE (to the merge). There is no significant benefit to be gained and such merges merely distory history towarsd the revisionist version of the victors. "Clones", whether true clones, partial "clones", or "copies", are entitled to their own page which should be referenced on the supposed "originator of the lineage". LookingGlass (talk) 07:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
That is purely a matter of opinion. There's no inherent "entitlement" to a separate page for every subject in Wikipedia and there's no inherent "entitlement" to a mention on the main "originator" page merely for the sake of it.
Your use of the words "entitlement", "revisionist" and "victors" suggest you feel strongly about this and assume that everyone here is arguing on an equally partisan basis. I don't believe that this is the case.
Generally speaking, we judge stuff like this on a case-by-case basis, and I see no evidence that this is being treated any less fairly than any other case involving offshoots or variants.
On the contrary, where there is very little *unique* to say about an offshoot or variant it's better kept as a subsection. Even where it *is* possible to write enough to fill an article, we'll leave it until that content has actually been written; there's no point moving it before then.
I'm against proliferation of contrived articles that are little more than stubs and/or overlap significantly with the parent simply to pander to someone's feeling that something is important enough to warrant its own article.
That said, I note that the article has been expanded significantly since 25 August- i.e. after the discussion was started- and this may change some people's opinions. FWIW, it makes me more inclined to think it should be kept as a separate article, though I still think that it might be a good idea to merge ZX Spectrum Vega and ZX Spectrum Vega+.
Ubcule (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Proposed merge with Pentagon (computer)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was no consensus for merger. ApLundell (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

In its current state, it's not deserving of its own article. I'm not sure if this is notable enough for its own article, but feel it should be described in the "main" article at least. Adam9007 (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

If it warrants merging, it should go into List of ZX Spectrum clones, not the main article.
That was split off for good reason (i.e. individually there might not be that much said about the clones, but collectively there's enough information there to seriously bloat the parent article!)
Since the Pentagon doesn't appear to be a particularly special case, it should go into List of ZX Spectrum clones like the others. Ubcule (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

DISAGREE (to the merge). There is no significant benefit to be gained and such merges merely distory history towarsd the revisionist version of the victors. "Clones", whether true clones, partial "clones", or "copies", are entitled to their own page which should be referenced on the supposed "originator of the lineage". LookingGlass (talk) 07:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

See my response to the identical comment you posted in the Vega+ merge discussion above. Note that this article has also been (slightly) expanded since this discussion began. Ubcule (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

DISAGREE Pentagon is one of the most prominent unofficial ZX Spectrum clones, it differs in hardware and software library from the ZX Spectrum, it's in a very short list of variants that get emulated in common emulators (e.g. fuse). I can think no benefit from removing this bit of computer history from Wikipedia. We aren't merging all the PC models made since 1981 into the article, and we shouldn't. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, if there's room in it for all the obscure western computers, there's room for the popular eastern ones even if you've personally never seen one. Helixdq (talk) 10:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Proposed merge with ATM (computer)[edit]

Horrid article. I suggest we put what's salvageable here and blow the rest up. Adam9007 (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

As above, there exists a separate list article for clones of the Spectrum. If the article warrants merging, it should be to there, not the main article. Ubcule (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

DISAGREE (to the merge). There is no significant benefit to be gained and such merges merely distory history towarsd the revisionist version of the victors. "Clones", whether true clones, partial "clones", or "copies", are entitled to their own page which should be referenced on the supposed "originator of the lineage". LookingGlass (talk) 07:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

See my response to the identical comment you posted in the Vega+ merge discussion above. Ubcule (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Dragon 32[edit]

So I'm not sure why Chaheel Riens has a big chip on his shoulder (pun fully intended!) about the simple addition of the Dragon 32 as one of the major rivals in the home micro market in the early 1980s to the ZX Spectrum, but I'm afraid the sky is blue on this one. I lived it. I know: I'm not a source. And yeah - finding a source to corroborate the facts should be easy.

Or so you would think!

However, the real world doesn't quite work like that. For something as trivial as including another home micro in the short list of main rivals shouldn't need this much work or discussion, to start with. However, that being said, let's get back to the usual hard-ass, troublesome, nit-picky 'guidelines' (or red tape) of Wikipedia.

In the real world, the Internet came into existence some time around the early 1990s. The WWW was invented by TBL around the mid-90s. Before that, we had things called magazines and books. Not everything - and particularly not everything that failed (the demise of the Dragon 32, for example, following a pretty strong couple of years) - has been recorded on the Internet.

So no - finding a source will not necessarily be easy.

Here's an idea for you though, Chaheel Riens: why don't you find a source. I'm a casual editor of this thing, trying to avoid this exact kind of situation. I haven't registered because of this exact kind of situation. You have taken more time. Time to register. Time, presumably, to patrol articles. Time to upload around 40 images (cool ones, by the way). Time to make in excess of 14,000 edits in Wikipedia article space, most of them probably top quality.

Looking at your image uploads, it seems to me that you're either a fan of retro gaming, or you lived it yourself. Now, if you lived it and you lived it in the UK, then surely you'll remember the hot-selling Dragon 32 and all the hype that surrounded it? Here are the main British home computers that were sold in that short time period of the early-to-mid 1980s: the Speccy; the Oric-1; the BBC Micro; and the Dragon 32. Outside rivals included the CBM 64, and the Vic-20 (which still sold for a while, I believe), and the Texas Instruments TI-99. The Atari VCS 2600 was still selling for a while in that early period, though that was a console. The TI-99 didn't do quite so well. The Amtrad CPC464 wasn't introduced until the end of the '82-'84 period. I'm not sure that it managed to be as popular as the Dragon 32. Yet it is mentioned in the article as a 'rival' to the Speccy in "the early 1980s".

Really, the top-selling home micros were the Speccy and the C64. Following that were the BBC and then the Dragon 32. Others that I was aware of at the time were the Atari 400 and 800, the Sharp something-or-other and the ZX-81 which was still having games produced for it(!).

I'll offer the magazine C&VG as evidence that the Dragon 32 was indeed pretty much one of the main rivals for the home computer market (in the UK). For example, pages 76-77 of the Jan 1983 issue is an advert from Maplin Electronics, which sold the main range (which the exception of the Speccy): the C64, the Vic 20, the Atari 400/800 and the Dragon 32.

The [cover of the April 1983 issue of the same magazine] states clearly, "Games for the Vic, Spectrum, Atari, Dragon, ZX-81 and many more"... obviously felt the Dragon important enough at that time to mention by name, rather than relegating it to the "and many more" category of home computers.

Page 194 of the Nov 1983 issue of C&VG shows that big software companies such as Ocean were still making games for the Dragon 32, along with versions of their games for the C64 and Speccy. 'Hunchback' on the Dragon was actually pretty crap, mind you!

More random selections from the magazine ... the cover of the April 1984 issue show it included program listings for the most popular home micros: the BBC, TI-99, C64, Speccy, Vic-20 and Dragon. HMV carried games for the Dragon, as well as the rivals C64, Speccy, Vic-20, BBC, Oric, and the Electron.

The Jan 1984 issue mentions on page 174 that it has games listings for "all the top micros"... the Spectrum, BBC, Vic, Atari, Dragon, Oric and Texas.

The Feb 1984 issue (p162) gives software charts by machine, listing for the Speccy, ZX-81, Vic 20, Atari 400/800, C64, Dragon and BBC 'B'.

By Jan 1985, the C&VG/Daily Mirror software chart still included the Dragon 32, alongside the main rivals Speccy, Vic20, C64, Electron, Atari, Oric and BBC.

It was during this year that mainstream computer industry mags and media started mentioning the Dragon less and less, as the computer wasn't being sold in the UK and many owners had moved on to other home micros.

The C&VG mag also carried adverts throughout, which show many stores offering the Dragon computer for sale, or offering Dragon software for sale. Boots was a shop in most major British towns, which carried the Dragon 32, alongside the Commodore 64 etc for at least a year or two. The software companies and publishers, such as Microdeal, Lothlorian, Scott Adams (Adventure International), Beam Software / Melbourne House, Imagine etc etc developed games across various platforms. For at least two years, the Dragon was often included in the ports of these games from (or even to) other home computers.

That should be enough in the way of sourcing to show the fact of the matter. I will revert my edit and assume the red tape has been satiated! -- (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I never got the feeling Chaheel had any sort of chip on his shoulder... But then, whether he did or not is irrelevant. The important thing is whether he is right.
There's no question that the Dragon had software available for sale at the same time as the Spectrum; the question is whether this was a rivalry, and whether this rivalry is notable enough to mention. For example, I note that with the exception of the Nov 1983 link, each source you provided also mentions the VIC-20 alongside the Dragon (and the Nov 1983 has the VIC-20 mentioned alongside the Spectrum on pages other than the one you highlighted). With just these sources, we have just as much to call the VIC-20 a rival as the Dragon-32. When looking wider, the VIC-20 had a larger impact in other fashions, being released before the Dragon, outliving it, and being the first system to sell over a million; given all this, wouldn't we push for the inclusion of the VIC-20 on this list ahead of the Dragon? (In fact, I'd argue we should probably look at whether the systems currently listed should really be shown as "rivals", or whether that's even a particular useful term here; certainly the list as it stands is entirely unsourced, which is an issue in itself. This whole sentence needs to be looked at, IMO.)
As a side note, as someone who also has fond memories of the 80s home computer market, while I certainly remembered the Dragon when I read your post about it on this talk page it wasn't something I remember making a large impact on me at the time. This is why we have the "red tape"; people's opinions and memories can vary, and give distorted views of facts, and lead us to alternate interpretations of sources. Either of us could have an inaccurate view of this... one of us has to... And people like Chaheel do an important job in making sure we keep that in mind, and making sure we present (as much as possible) an objective truth.
I haven't reverted your edit at this point, but I would like you to have a think about whether you still feel the Dragon should be included in this fashion, and if so, I'd suggest coming up with something that more directly points towards the rivalry you are suggesting took place, rather than just proof that the Dragon existed and was selling at the same time. Aawood (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I got the feeling he had a chip on his shoulder, after he undid my edit twice, along with the comments, "a drop in the ocean compared to the other machines" and "unsourced opinion" (my emphasis), and his sarcastic-sounding "then finding a source to corroborate this should be easy for you". That's just the feeling I got.
Like I explained, finding sources which suggest the sky is actually blue isn't always easy.
I think you may perhaps be over-thinking this thing. Was the Vic 20 a rival to the ZX Spectrum? Sure - it was contemporaneous to it. However, the Vic-20 was actually an earlier 'generation' (I use the term loosely) of home micro than the Speccy or Dragon. As for being 'rivals', I think the word is appropriate - especially considering the rivalry amongst the owners of those computers at the time. Even snobbery in some quarters! Common sense, I believe, would lead you to the conclusion that the computers mentioned as the article now stands were the main 'rivals' of the year or so after the release of those computers. All of them were released in 1982.. the BBC at the end of 1981, would maybe just sneak in there and the Oric-1 would sneak in as it was released the the beginning of the following year, 1983. The Atmos, in my opinion, doesn't belong there at all. Nor do the Amstrad machines. There would certainly be more of a rationale for the Vic-20 to be included in the list. My personal opinion would be to just mention the obvious BBC, C64, Dragon and Oric. I wouldn't mention the previous ZX-81 or Vic-20 simply because they had been replaced by the newer machines.
I'm not sure why you wouldn't remember the Dragon making an impact. All the computer magazines of the time mentioned it consistently, along with the other popular micros. Do you remember Input magazine (let's see if that link turns blue!)? A Marshall Cavendish production, in 1984 it introduced people to coding and concentrated on basically four machines (or four manufacturers): the Sinclair machines, the CBM machines, the BBC machines and the Dragon and Tandy Coco.
On top of that, as well as C&VG, one of the other top-selling home computer/games mags was 'Your Computer'. The first issue was in the summer of 1981, and the issue covering the release of the Dragon 32 shows clearly that the article author felt the computer would be a rival to the Speccy. Your Computer put the mentioned the Dragon on its cover consistently from November 1982 until November 1984. How you managed to miss the splash the computer made, I don't know. Maybe you just weren't interested in it. You were interested more in your own Spectrum, or your C64 or which ever. I was interested in computers in general, so I noticed the most popular ones and read all the magazines.
Randomly: three Dragon software titles in the top 20 in May 1983, and three in the top 20 in Jan 84. Interestingly, C64 titles seem to be missing from the top 20 for a long time, until after Commodore slashed the price of their 64.
Having thought more about it, and having skimmed through archives of computer mags from the early to mid 1980s over the past couple of days, I'm actually more convinced than ever that the Dragon should remain as one of the main 'rivals' mentioned, and is more 'deserving' of being in such a shortlist than other micros that were in the list before I added the Dragon. I also do think the word 'rival' is appropriate, for the reasons I outlined above.
I appreciate your defence of Chaheel here. I really do understand the need to be objective and to stand by policy. But I don't think this is one of those times. This is one of those times wherein common sense should prevail. I have outlined that the Dragon was very much a part of the media world (in relation to the genre of home computing and gaming) by pointing to three of the most popular British computer magazines and how they gave the computer coverage and mentioned it over and above many other, much less supported, home micros of the time. I have already, of course, mentioned how the Dragon didn't quite get to the echelons of sales (and software support) of Big Two (Speccy and C64). But it was, nevertheless, a rival. Perhaps your idea of the word 'rival' is different than the original author or mine. Perhaps rival means, to you, a set of people or objects which all have just about the same attributes and from which no clear 'winner' can easily be ascertained. I'm not trying to suggest that. Perhaps I'm trying to suggest something more akin to recent events in the English Prem though! If we cut down that league to some four or five teams/computers, then I would certainly suggest that is a good metaphor.
I think I have suggested, quite strongly, how the Dragon made a big (though short-lived) splash.. and not just pointed to the fact that it existed. There are plenty of other home computers that could be said of. At the risk of sounding needlessly aggressive, I will now pass the ball back to you to kick about and think over. -- (talk) 06:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
A few things you've stated here kinda illustrate my point. To you, as someone who was interested in home computers during the 80s, you remember the Dragon being a rival, to the point of considering it blue sky, common sense, obvious. To me, as someone who was interested in home computers during the 80s, I remember the Dragon being a side system, to the point of considering it blue sky, common sense, obvious. Either of us could be wrong, but it's essentially irrelevant which; the disagreement (especially when paired with disagreement with another user) is enough in itself to remove The Sky Is Blue from the picture; if it was that obvious, we wouldn't be having this debate. This puts us back to standard wikipedia rules; to add it, source it.
If you are correct, Chaheel is right; sources should be possible. You've shown that there are accessible readable catalogues of magazine from that period, and if no rivalry can be made evident with those, I really don't see how there can have been a rivalry to show. To be clear here, and as I said before, at least one of us is wrong about our multi-decade-old memories, and it's entirely possible it's me. But if you are right, the (yes, often annoying) point here is that that that isn't enough; you need to prove that you are right. Part of that will be figuring out what 'rival' means in this context; I have no idea (as I alluded to before, I'm frankly in favour of gutting the whole sentence until someone can explain that, and why the existing 'rivals' were chosen). You've discounted the VIC-20 over the Dragon because it was "replaced by a newer machine", but I don't see how the distinction there is any less arbitrary than "The Dragon should be discounted over the VIC-20 because it was discontinued earlier". And again, to be clear, that's no a particular weakness of your argument, just that I don't think anyone has clearly defined what a "rival" is in this context.
Frankly, if I was to point at something being evidence of rivalry I wouldn't point to sales figures, chart positions etc... Again, by those metrics the VIC would be as good or a better fit anyway... But more of a cultural clash between the markets, evidence of direct "my system is better than yours because X" by users, media, system manufacturers. Letters pages with Spectrum/Dragon users mentioning the inferiority of the other's system would be the place I'd look to, or adverts for one system mentioning the other. That said, once again, I don't really know what 'rival' means in this context, so I wouldn't take this as Wikipedia Law or anything. I'd invite other users to chime in on this point; what would be required to show that a system is a "rival"? Do we have sources showing that for the existing "rivals" listed?
For the record, I do remember Input magazine, although I never did get around to typing out that text adventure game they built up across the issues. Aawood (talk) 12:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I never got around to finishing it either, unfortunately!
Ignoring the idea of the sky being blue, I disagree with you entirely with regard to sources being possible. I will give you extreme examples: totalitarian states control what is published. They often tend to actually re-write or change historical narrative. So, there may have been events in such states that happened. But there is no record of them. Many events perhaps happened during WWI. However, I believe the last surviving soldier from that war is now dead. In another ten or twenty years, no civilians from that period will be alive. While there may have been loads of books written about it, there are perhaps unpublished tales that don't have sources. We know that a group of people existed called the Picts. However, so little of their language survives that we don't even know which language they spoke. There are no sources, nor are there likely to be any sources.
So I disagree in the strongest of terms with your idea that if it happened, then it will have been recorded. There are other events that can transpire - some minor celebs from the 1980s forgotten, until perhaps they die or make a comeback or have some scandal hit them. Then people collectively remember the splash they made, however short-lived. But in the pre-Internet era, their celebrity has not necessarily been recorded. You might be lucky to find archived scans of 1980s magazines, as in the case for the microcomputer industry.
Again, I really think this discussion is labouring the point. I've provided many links from three different sources, all of which supported (consistently over two years) the Dragon as well as the Spectrum, the Vic, the C64, the Atari machines, the BBC and the Oric. The ZX-81 is also mentioned a lot during the period although, as I suggested above, it had been superceded in terms of relevancy by the Speccy (and the Vic by the C64). Other micros, by comparison to those I've listed in this paragraph, are mentioned only occasionally or didn't have the longevity. The QL, the C16, the Jupiter Ace etc, not mentioned much at all in comparison to the main Atari, Commodore, Dragon, BBC, and Sinclair micros.
As for the suitability of the word 'rival' - I know from experience that they were all rivals: in terms of competition and market share, and in terms of ownership by the end users. The 'Old Firm' or 'derby' were the C64 and the Speccy. To continue the analogy, the Dragon was probably the Aberdeen FC, Hearts FC, or Manchester City FC of top league football.
Like I said before, I'm a casual editor of this thing. I have already put in far too much time as it is, on this issue. I'm not about to go trawling (did you like that link for the original meaning of that word? ;) probably not mentioned in the wiki article for it though!) through old archived magazines for letters from people highlighting their feelings of rivalry and snobbery - I believe the information I've already supplied strongly suggests that the Dragon was one of the main competitors of the period. I do have a feeling that you will find evidence of it, but I don't think that's will make the Dragon stand out - after all, I'm sure people wrote in suggesting their Jupiter Ace was a rival to some of the other machines.
If all my blather above sounds very intransigent or severe, please know that I am certainly open to other suggestions as to rewording. However, I do think that the 'Big Four' BBC, Sinclair, Commodore, Dragon, along with the Atari and Oric should probably be mentioned. The Amstrad should be dropped, and the Oric Atmos specifically should also be dropped. This is an article about a British computer and neither the BBC, Speccy or Dragon did particularly well in the USA or Japan (so far as I'm aware). Perhaps we can replace the word "rivals" with "competitors" or "major competitors", or with "popular contemporaneous competitors". -- (talk) 17:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

"Basic fact checking"[edit]

With regard to this edit summary, my response is that "Basic Fact checking" is to be done by the inserting editor, not the removing editor. If you want to add valid references then that's fine, but do not presume to tell me that it's my job to do so, just because I removed some unsourced info, especially when part of said info relates to Timex Sinclair which relates exclusively to the American variants of the Sinclair range - this is clearly the wrong link, and I've changed it, again.

I'll also be pedantic and mention that the source is not entirely accurate - the Spectrum was not "£145 with extra RAM", but either £175, or £129 - I assume based on the articles claim of £125, that it means £179 and it's just a typo. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Just because someone has added unsourced information does not mean you should immediately revert it. It is very discouraging to new editors. Please see - Wikipedia:Reverting#When_to_revert. MrMajors (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
That's an essay not a policy, and while you may follow it if you wish - I am under no obligation do to do. You may hold whatever opinion of me you want - I don't care - but don't presume to dictate to me just because I removed incorrect information from an article - which you then reinstated, albeit probably unintentionally. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)