Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Personal computer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Personal computer

Here is a shameless self-nomination. This exploded view of a personal computer was created in response to a request for better illustrations for the article. I think it helps the article in describing what a typical (modern) personal computer consists of.

Furthermore, I would like to see more illustrations of featured picture quality in vector format (SVG) and I think this drawing is a good example of such. (If I count correct, currently there are only three featured pictures in vector format.)

• Self-nominate. –Gustavb 17:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Given how the PC market is going currently, a laptop might be more appropriate.
• Support. Nicely composed and very illustrative. |→ Spaully°τ 19:06, 12 March 2006 (GMT)
• Comment I don't really like how the monitor is turned... why isn't it facing the same direction as the keyboard? Also, the motherboard is somewhat reversed. The processor is typically in the upper-left hand corner, and the face of the motherboard is supposed to be facing toward the left side of the case (in this drawing, the expansion slots would not line up with the back of the case!). ~MDD4696 19:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the monitor, yes I turned it away a bit in order to not make it too dominant. I haven't thought much about the placement of the components on the motherboard, the main thing was just to show them. Furthermore I'm not sure that all types of motherboards have the same layout, what about macs and SPARC based ones for instance? I've tried to illustrate something generic. But yes, you are correct about the expansion cards, they could be moved to the back, thanks for bringing it up. –Gustavb 20:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support I'll support this version. The montherboard floating above the comp throws me off but it work well enough. -Ravedave 00:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Though I agree with Ravedave in terms of the motherboard throwing off the balance slightly. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 02:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, Good work doing SVG, but expansion slots are too far forward (or rather the motherboard is the wrong way around) and screen is at funny angle compared to keyboard. —Pengo 16:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Support version 4 Even though it's merely flipped, I actually find the third version more athetically pleasing than the previous two. Perhaps because it doesn't jar with my preconceptions. I'd still like more stuff (like power cables, heatsink, fan, speakers, metal panes on the extension cards). Also i'm not sure why it needs to be all exloded rather than cut away (for the PSU and drives at least), but i'll support as is. My main issue now is that the IDE ports should be labelled, as what goes into them isn't immediately obvious from the diagram. —Pengo 00:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. This isn't ready yet. With more work, this could be good, but I think that it's two or three revisions away from that. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there anything in addition to the issues mentioned this far that you would like to see changed? –Gustavb 22:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Mostly that the motherboard needs fixing and the monitor angle is weird, as stated above. In addition, the entire thing feels a bit "stark" but I wouldn't vote Oppose based solely on that. Also, you might want to add a floppy drive... some people still use those. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral for the time being. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Support. Version 4 or 5, good work! --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Here is a new version. I've rotated the monitor and rearranged things on the motherboard a bit. I hope it's better… –Gustavb 23:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It's better, except the motherboard still, well, upside down compared to every computer case i've had. It's a good image, but as said by Dante Alighieri above, I think it needs a few more revisions to be ready. It hardly seems fair that a diagram takes so much more work than a photo, but.. well.. it does —Pengo 23:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm missing something obvious here, but in what way is it upside down? Is this motherboard upside down too? If I transpose the motherboard in my illustration down to the hinted outline, I think looks pretty much the same as the one in the picture. Yes, it sure takes a lot of work… I almost regret that I didn't do this as a 3D model in blender or something :) –Gustavb 00:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Although I can't make out any of the text in the image, I am 99% positive that that particular image has been flipped horizontally. This image is how just about every computer I've seen is oriented. ~MDD4696 02:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you're right, of course, the illustration is flipped. Not an easy thing to change, I'm afraid… –Gustavb 02:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support Very nicely done. I replaced all instances of Image:Personal_computer,_exploded.svg with the second version Image:Personal_computer,_exploded_2.svg. Alvinrune ^TALK 02:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Though it's not a big issue, this dialogue on "the mainboard is backwards" is stupid at best. The image was requested (by me) to illustrate what a PC might look like, not what ATX layout is. The image does not claim to be one of an ATX PC, nor has that been suggested by anybody here. Nothing at all mandates that PC (or otherwise) expansion cards are in any particular place in a microcomputer (look up the umpteen various standardized computer layouts and form factors). Again, I don't particularly care which way the mainboard is oriented since I requested this simply for illustrative purposes (and more specifically, to rid personal computer of those terrible shots of peoples' desktops), but your vote shouldn't be "oppose" based on a preconception that a PC must conform to ATX. -- uberpenguin 02:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Uh, sure, a computer could theoretically be built as a mirror image of ATX, but computers aren't typically built that way. Note that in the first image that the card slots don't line up with the back of the computer, so if you had a monitor plugged into this picasso-world computer you would have to leave the case off so the monitor could plug into the strangely internal backplane (or perhaps the monitor is meant to plug into the front?) This has been fixed somewhat now anyway, but I think it would be kind of embarrassing having a mirror-world or picasso-world computer in the featured image list, especially if it were to end up on the front page. It's a good image, and it's illustrative as it is, but it would be better if it reflected the real world (most computers use PCI cards, and that's what these cards look like), and it needs to be a better image to be a featured picture. I'd also like to see some indication of where things plug in (like the monitor or PSU), and perhaps include speakers and a heatsink+fan for the CPU, as are fairly typical on PCs. That said, it's definitely a good image, and a much better than I could draw. —Pengo 03:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"Computers aren't typically built that way"? I am loathe to point out that there is quite a broad array of "computers" (and PCs specifically) that are arranged totally differently from ATX. I specifically wanted to avoid many of the specifics you are citing so the image would be more general in scope. The diagram should only show the very basics of what is typical in a PC, and this it does. Consider that this is intended for the article personal computer, which discusses (or will discuss) PCs in many shapes and forms; including those that existed before this century. Heatsink/fan? Come now, even within your lifetime there have been a multitude of PCs that required no heat spreading for their CPU. Several late Intel P4 designs required no heat sink for reliable operation, and many members of the P5 family only required a small passive heatsink (no fan). I reiterate that I think it's silly for you to oppose this image on grounds that it doesn't look exactly like the x86 ATX tower sitting next to you, however that is your prerogative. When I requested it be made, I wanted it to be uncluttered, general, and simple. The image more or less perfectly fills those requirements and makes an excellent addition to the PC (not ATX) article. -- uberpenguin 03:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support version two version four or five of this image as is. No additional clutter is needed in it. -- uberpenguin 03:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support version two. - Glaurung 07:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Here is a new version in response to the concerns about the "flipped" motherboard. I still agree with uberpenguin that it's not very relevant, but on the other hand I don't want anyone to think it's embarrasing if it ends up as a FP… –Gustavb 16:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • A few last details: its non-obvious (remember, not everyone who looks will know what they're "supposed" to see) that the CPU goes with the CPU socket and that the RAM goes in the RAM slots. Also, you've included the IDE connectors but not labeled them. The only other thing I'd change is the base for the monitor which looks oddly off-center. Other than that, I think you've done an excellent job responding to the listed concerns. I've changed my vote to Neutral pending the further changes, which would garner a Support. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Ignore comment about off-center monitor base, that was fixed in 2->3. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The microprocessor->socket thing is likely a valid concern here. I'm against labeling the "IDE connectors" because a discrete mass storage storage bridge interface (and specifically ATA) is not necessarily part of any PC. If ATA is even mentioned in the PC article, it will be purely as an example. Again, the diagram should only show the very fundamental components one would see in nearly all modern PCs. The diagram doesn't actually need the ATA headers, but I don't see much reason to remove them either. -- uberpenguin 22:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
      • You're right, it's not obvious that the CPU/RAM goes with their sockets. What solution do you propose? "Hinting" lines (like the other components), moving them a bit closer, or moving them in place? –Gustavb 23:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
      • They're the only un-labeled components. They either need labels or need to be removed. I'm fine either way. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
      • There are two questions that need to be answered for the viewer of this image: "What are those? (the unlabelled ATA headers) and "How does do the drives connect with the rest of the PC?" Leaving the ATA headers unlabelled fails to answer the first question, and removing them fails to answer the second. However the first question is more important, and as most of the connections between things have been left out (e.g. monitor cables, PSU to motherboard+power, etc), it would seem logical to continue this style and simply remove the headers. My preference, however, would be to leave them in and label them as an example of how drives connect to the PC. Give them a suitably generic name if necessary. E.g. "Sockets for drives to connect (ATA headers)" It doesn't matter that ATA isn't on every PC, and that it may connect elsewhere. This is an example PC, not every PC. It's more confusing to leave questions unanswered. And as for the CPU/RAM, I find their sockets/slots obvious enough. Pengo 00:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
      • As for IDE not being necessarily a part of any PC: nor is the monitor, keyboard, mouse, optical drive, hard drive, expansion cards, or even the beige case. Pengo 00:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Haha.. I was hoping someone would say that. You're right of course; the real issue is that there's little reason to go into a diversion about host bridges in an article about PCs. As I said, for the purposes of this discussion I don't particularly care if they are removed. -- uberpenguin 01:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I've tried to make it more clear that the CPU and RAM belong to their sockets… it's not perfect, but I think it's a bit better. So, now we have one version without ATA and one with ATA+labels. Regarding adding cables etc., I would say it's hard adding it without making it messy (at least I don't have the skill to do that). Furthermore, I think the illustration explains enough as it is. –Gustavb 02:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I've supported either of your two latest (4/5) versions. Great work responding to concerns! Leaving the cables out is a wise decision. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support either of the last two, nice job! --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 04:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support versions 4 or 5 These two versions are sufficiently detailed to be accurate and plausible (the IDE cards in the front would be just silly) and also nicely composed and done from a graphical standpoint. —This unsigned comment was added by Johntex (talk • contribs) 22:28 16 March 2006.
• Support 5. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-18 19:11
• Support Cleary shows all the important parts of a computer without being over-simplistic or over-complicated. Clear, artistic image. Msoos 16:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Version 5. There's no graphics/monitor/keyboard/mouse ports, so no point having ATA. And the ATA ports are usually to the right of the PCI slots. ed g2s • talk 16:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support 4 or 5, preferably 5. Great illustration. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Version 4 or 5. Great illustration. Not too much or too little information depicted. Canuck89 21:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: nothing special --Hetar 09:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: This vote was cast after the picture had been promoted and was not taken into account. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Personal computer, exploded 5.svg This one took some time to review. Clearly, the image in any form was supported. Since the early votes were cast before the 4th and 5th image was posted, I think that those the early voters wouldn't oppose these versions. I also think 3-5 are more realistic in their depiction. Of the people who voted last, #5 seemed to be the favorite. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
.