Talk:Apple I

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Apple I article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1: 3 months

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on April 1, 2016.

Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.

Copied pages:
Merged Apple I character set (oldid, history) → Apple I on October 25, 2019 Copied Steve Wozniak (oldid, history) → Apple I (diff) on October 25, 2023 Copied History of Apple Inc. (oldid, history) → Apple I (diff) on October 25, 2023

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Industrial design Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Industrial design, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Industrial design on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Industrial designWikipedia:WikiProject Industrial designTemplate:WikiProject Industrial designIndustrial design
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Apple Inc. Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Mac, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Apple Inc.Wikipedia:WikiProject Apple Inc.Template:WikiProject Apple Inc.Apple Inc.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computing Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Early computers task force.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force.

Another possibility

Looking at the DAB it seems to me that Apple 1 should be a primary redirect to Apple I.

Ammarpad, O.N.R., JIP, any comments on that possibility? Andrewa (talk) 10:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Andrewa: noted above there is also an article titled Apple One, so then while one of them might be a primary topic/redirect, how would "one" pick between them? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 10:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a good idea, as the only other entry with its own article is Apple One, and that uses a different spelling. JIP | Talk 11:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that [1] can also be considered an alternative "spelling", or at least an alternative form, of both [I] and [One]. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 11:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's relevant whether or not 1 and I and One are alternative spellings of the same word. Even if so that doesn't make Apple 1 and Apple I and Apple One alternative spellings of the same name. They may be. Or not.

Because that's not the way English works and nor does Wikipedia article naming policy.

The article at Apple One is IMO correctly named. That doesn't prevent Apple I being the correct name for that other article, nor does it prevent Apple 1 redirecting to it. Andrewa (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You could be right, and I could be wrong. Since Apple 1 presently titles a dab page and is ambiguous to both Apple One and Apple I, I think it best for Wp readers to leave things as they are. I think the present situation is best in spite of confusing names to help readers find what they are looking for. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 17:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Related to this is my (re-opened) discussion below about the naming of the Apple I page. Given that a) Apple called the computer the "Apple 1", and b) the only evidence we have for the popularity of the "Apple I" name indicates that it is much less often used than "Apple 1," renaming the Apple I page to the computer's actual and apparently more frequently used name takes over the disambiguation page. Cjs (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clare

This sign needs citation 2600:1012:B18A:153D:887C:4D61:194F:D029 (talk) 04:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that it had 456KB of storage must be wrong

Firstly it came from this edit which did not cite any source for this claim and also vandalised the developer's name.

Secondly its storage was as much or as little as the cassette tape allows. A 15-minute tape offers less storage than a 90-minute tape.

So the correct way to fix this would be to remove "456 KB" but keep "cassette tape" for the Storage field. 86.21.18.3 (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citation style

Some of the page citations in the article use {{rp}}, and some use {{sfn}} – roughly the same number of each in total. I think that we should standardise the article on one of the two: any preferences as to which? I generally prefer sfn, but would like to check for a consensus before starting on conversion work. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good! Either is fine. I recently rewrote the article with some sources copied from other ones, so there is some inconsistency. 3df (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done, finally – I had a busy two months, it seems! Best, Wham2001 (talk) 11:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move 2

Apparently I wasn't auto-subscribed to the requested move from "Apple I" to "Apple 1" discussion I started, and I noticed the result only now. What we have if I'm understanding it correctly is a) clear evidence of the manufacturer's name of the device, b) two people agreeing it should be changed, c) one suggesting discussion, d) an entirely unsupported claim that "Apple I" is now the "most common name", e) the discussion closed based on two people agreeing with d).

First, I have doubts about "Apple I" being the most common name. No evidence was presented for this, and according to google n-gram, it appears to be quite the opposite, with "Apple 1" being on the order of a hundred times more common.

Second, it seems to me more often the case that we make a commonly-used but unofficial redirect to a page with the correct name. E.g., the page name for the "PS2" is "PlayStation 2" despite the former being [vastly ] more often used.

Thus, I re-open this request to change the name to the proper name of the machine, and change the redirect to be the alternate unofficial name. Cjs (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]