Talk:Fx-7400g plus

Fx-7400g plus

 * Calculator models? I don't know... I feel like having a stub on every calculator is not useful - better to have an article that describes the history of the development of the calculator, or even, if we must, one articel that lists all calculators and an article for particularly notable ones. Mark Richards 23:40, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, I want to write about the TI-73. - Woodrow 23:43, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Articles are warranted about the histories of specific and important calculators, but not on every dam' calculator ever. Elde 00:42, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't think we need an article for every calculator model, especially variants. I could see ones that were particularly notable, maybe, like first, first electronic, first digital, first handheld, first cordless, first specifically for kids, first that could interface with computers, etc., but that's it. Niteowlneils 00:52, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think it would be nice to have articles on every calculator model. Everyking 01:12, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. What's next, every type of VCR, laundry detergent, barcode number for mass-produced fashion? If anything, put a table on the Casio page with the models. -- Hankwang 12:47, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Another apparent newbie, who has previously created now-deleted articles for specific camera models (I don't know which ones) and been argumentative when they were deleted. Difficult IMO. What level of detail do we want? Is it possible to be consistent across subjects, or even meaningful to try? I don't know either. Andrewa 13:57, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Real, no basis for deletion.  Potentially useful for future researcher.  Jgm 00:43, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with Hankwang; we can't possibly list every type of every mechanical device known to man (it's hard enough with just military technology and the Monarchs of England).  Unless someone actually wants to write an article about every calculator type ever brought forth, none can really be justified. Wally 03:25, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm still not ready to vote in this, but I do want to say that two of those arguments are invalid. We can list every type of calculator, camera, every weapon calibre and so on. It's more we don't want to. Perhaps this is mere pedantry, but my second objection is important. We do want to list important (not necessarily just famous) calculator models (if such exist) just as we list important people. The question is, where and how do we draw the line? Andrewa 23:14, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wikipedia does not need wallspace. If it's of enough interest for one person to write an article about, there are probably a hundred who are interested in reading about it. Besides, as an unabashed calculator junkie, I agree with Everyking. Denni 20:47, 2004 Mar 25 (UTC)
 * The problem isn't that we'd run out of space, but that each one would be a stub (as this one is). A list, with occasional articles about particularly interesting ones, would be fine, but this one is not that interesting. Dozens of articles each saying &quot;This was a calculator that was a variant of another calculator&quot; doesn't tell you anything, but a well structured articele about the development of them might, if anyone was interested in doing more than simply listing the fact that it exists. Mark Richards 00:15, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * That, and we have to judge labor concerns here as well. If it can be agreed that SOMEONE is going to do it - and I think, reasonably, it can - then that someone who does do it will more likely be doing that just so it's done, and not be working on an article that is more important, such as Assassin (shameless plug). The precedent is rather staggering; do we really want open season to have work diverted from every project so that every dumpster, toaster and lawn chair model has its own article? Space may be unlimited, but manpower is not, and we have entire countries whose history, culture and politics are sketchy. Unless the calculator has an army, it can wait, methinks. Wally 06:42, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Not really a legit argument. The nutbar guy who has this, um, thing about a particular calculator is either going to write about it or write about nothing. We're not going to get him to do an article on the influence of Greek fisheries on the rise of the Dianthian pseudoaristocracy no matter what. I can appreciate keeping stubs in line, but that's a problem in itself, and one, along with a workable index, Wiki needs to address. Denni 22:20, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)


 * Delete. Agree with Mark Richards: keep only the significant/notable models.  There isn't a need for an article for every calculator.    &rArr; whkoh &#91;talk&#93;   09:22, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * Rename to Casio Calculators and make it a section there. A list of all the calculators by a manufacturer would be of use.  The article is pretty small.  Eventually with a bunch of casio calculators there would even be reason for analysis on the line.  At least put the name Casio in the article so searches on "Casio" would pick it up.  Kd4ttc 23:00, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agreed with Mark Richards. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:40, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)