Talk:TRS-80 character set

Unreferenced

I prodded this article yesterday for being unsourced, and it remains unsourced, despite the dissembling edsum. Could somebody explain? User:Rowan03 User:Matthiaspaul. Thanks. Roxy the dog. bark 09:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Roxy, I'm afraid your assertion above does not make sense to me in multiple ways.

First of all, the article was not unreferenced at the time of your nomination, and it is not unreferenced now. Also, you did not nominate the article for being unsourced, but for a reference not supporting a statement - a false claim, as the given source actually does support the statement in the article. Please note that I don't state that all information in the article is fully referenced now, and I do want to see more references as well (and I think that it may still contain some inaccuracies to be sorted out), but in general even an article being unreferenced (or poorly sourced) is in itself not a valid reason for deletion, for as long as it can be reasonably assumed that supporting references exist somewhere (WP:NPOSSIBLE). In the case of character sets used in devices interfacing with users through programming languages or protocols (that is, devices which are not closed systems), you can assume with almost certainty that documentation about it exists or existed, because otherwise the device could never have been used in the intended way. The TRS-80 line of computers were mass-produced commercially available devices - I read that even circuit diagrams and ROM listings existed for them. Given that we're talking about a computer introduced long before the advent of the internet, such sources may not be available online, though, so we'd have to check libraries or ask around in user clubs. But even a quick Google check reveals lots of places (including dozens of journal articles and some books) where at least parts of the character set are discussed already. There is no dead-line (WP:DEADLINE), so we have plenty of time to deal with any issues the article might have in normal article development - no reason for deletion at all.

WP:PRODing is for uncontroversial deletions of articles only, that is, articles which are vandalism, spam, or articles about non-existing, non-verifiable or obviously non-notable topics (WP:DEL-REASON). Given that the article does not fall into these groups, I wonder how you could assume that the deletion of a freshly created article could not be controversial, in particular as the creator is still actively working on improving it. It's like a slap in the face of a contributing editor acting in good faith.

BTW. The creator of the article is a new editor but has already made a number of valuable content contributions. However, he or she appears to have difficulties expressing him- or herself in English, so let's assist him or her in improving the contributions instead of throwing stones.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Matthias, I'm afraid I'm just as confused as you. The page remains unsourced. The two refs do not support the character set. The article is not sourced at all. What am I missing? -Roxy the dog. bark 08:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Further, your comment that the creator of the article has made valuable contributions to the project in the time he has been here, four months, is problematic. I don't consider twenty five (25, yes, you did read that correctly) complaints in that time on his Talk page, all concerning exactly the same issue that I have, valuable contributions. Could you please take another look before I nom this article again. -Roxy the dog. bark 10:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, with two references in the article supporting individual statements, and one of them even supporting parts of the shown character set, calling an article "unsourced" is stretching the definition quite a bit IMO. But even if I would follow your definition, per WP:NPOSSIBLE it would not be a valid reason to delete an article for as long as it is sourceable.

However, you want more thorough sources for the table, and I want that as well. Our normal cooperative editing procedure for this scenario is to tag the relevant section(s) with {{cn}} (per WP:CITENEED and WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION) or add {{refimprove}} to the article (like I did) and wait for someone stopping by with the proper source at hands, not to delete the whole stuff - unless you'd have solid reason to doubt its truthfulness or if it's harmful or beyond any possible repair. Or do you really think that it would be impossible to find sources showing a character map or a more detailed describtion of the character set for a mass-produced computer like the TRS-80?

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 04:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

This is quite ridiculous. A question for you, which I'm curious to see if you will answer. How do we know that that the character set in this article is accurate? -Roxy the dog. bark 09:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

At the present state of affairs we don't, for those parts of the character set not explicitly covered in the reference already we have to assume good faith (WP:AGF) based on the editor's other contributions, which, as far as I was able to check so far (a work still in progress due to lack of time), have been accurate (with minor exceptions, which were clearly mistakes). There is always a risk, that some stuff in the article is inaccurate, but that is not special to this article but applies to virtually all articles in WP as most articles don't provides sources for everything, in particular new articles almost never do. Inaccuracies should be detected and dealt with, of course, however that happens in normal article improvement over time and without a deadline. It's a completely different matter than to discuss the possible deletion of an article. It also would be a completely different matter if the content would be harmful, or about living people - in this case, it would have to be deleted rather than be improved upon.

Our policies and guidelines explicitly ask us to make decisions based on sourceability and verifiability, instead of on the current state of an article, because if that principal ability exists, possibly existing issues can be addressed and our core goal of creating a reliable encyclopedic reference of knowledge be accomplished in the normal course of article editing without creating stress and without much overhead for anyone. It is much more economic and therefore more productive for the project to wait a while for an editor with the proper reference at hands to stop by than it would be for us, who never owned a TRS-80, to spend our time locating the sources in some dusty library instead of continuing to work on articles were we are those with the necessary references at hands. You can't build a house if some workers start to demolish unfinished walls just because fellow workers have a break.

Of course, if you have a solid reason to doubt the principle accuracy of the information, you can challenge and ultimately delete stuff, but you are entitled to do so only for a solid reason, not for "fun" or for being pointy (WP:POINTY) - that would be regarded as being unconstructive, if not disruptive. In the case of a character set of a commercially mass-produced line of computers and "open system" I have no doubt at all that documentation exists (do you?), so it's only a matter of time for it to turn up and any possible inaccuracies be addressed - hence, deleting the stuff would be counter-productive, as the same or similar contents would have to be recreated later on, anyway.

As character sets are generally in my scope of interest, sooner or later I may have a look for more references myself as well, but given that I'm currently working on other stuff, I'll have to do it at my own pace.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

You appear to support my article about how pink the sky is. There are no sources, but it doesn't matter, because you seem to think it is ok and that somebody may come along at some unspecified time in the future and perhaps supply references that show that the sky is pink, but in the meantime it is ok that this unsourced, but waiting for somebody to pop in and source a pink sky for us. No, I'm going to nom this, and I will use a method that you cannot remove according to policy. You are a disgrace to the project. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation

199.107.16.125 (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)I'm only dropping by to note that this character set appears to be for the black and white models of the TRS-80 Model I,III, and presumably IV. I don't know about the Model II, but I think it may be the same. This set does not correspond with the TRS-80 Color Computer line which used a distinctively different set. Notable differences are that the semi-graphics characters Color Computer line had color and were a 2x2 grid arrangement as compared to the black and white 2x3 arrangement. The Color Computer also had fewer special symbols, and some Color Computer ROMs had slight variations on characters, such as the asterisk (*) which looked more like a bullet hole in earlier versions, and more starlike in later ones. I'm not sure about the MC-10, but it may have other differences. This article may need to be clarified, expanded or split to another page to account for multiple character sets. Source: personal experience with Model I and III, Color Computer 1, 2, and 3.

Error in character set images

It seems the PNG images used for characters 0x85 (U+1FB04, TRS-80_character_0x85.png) and 0x86 (U+1FB05, TRS-80_character_0x86.png) are swapped. PhMajerus (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)