Talk:Prusa i3

Wouldn't it be better to say that "printers based on the design of the Prusa i3 are the most widely used printers in the world"?Kenblu24 (talk) 13:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Title
I think this article would be better if it were just about Prusa (the company) and not Prusa i3 specifically. Prusa also makes a bunch of other products which should be talked about.

--Dreamedofpie (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, a separate Prusa Research article that links to the printer pages would be great. --EasilyAmused (talk) 06:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Scope of article discussion
Once again Prusa XL and Prusa Mini have been added to this article. These are not iteration 3 (i3) printers; nor are they Mendel-based; one is a cantilever design, the other CoreXY. This is not an article about Prusa products; it is about the i3, a specific pioneering product with thousands of imitators. Rather than immediately revert this previous edit I'll give an opportunity for User:John_Cummings and others to suggest why Prusa XL and Prusa Mini should be described here instead of merely linked in a See-also fashion. EasilyAmused (talk) 04:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I totally agree. As I commented on Talk:Prusa Mini, Prusa XL and Prusa Mini do not belong in an article about Prusa i3 - they are completely different designs. I therefore propose to move the "overview" of the different Prusa printers to an article about Prusa Research. The company is a cornerstone in the 3D printing industry, and an article about the company should therefore be very notable in my opinion. I don't understand why the Prusa Research article was removed previously, and I don't understand why someone would write about the the XL and Mini in the i3 article. The way it is organized now is very confusing. Sauer202 (talk) 07:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC)


 * There seems to be no objection so I have removed XL and Mini and substituted a small section for additional clarity. I hope someone can step up and write Prusa XL and Prusa Research articles to a reasonable standard of notability. All the collected details about the Prusa Mini of course belong in that article, which seems to be coming along nicely and is very well referenced. EasilyAmused (talk) 06:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * > There seems to be no objection
 * Well, I object. As I noted on the Prusa Mini talk page:
 * I think the Mini and XL fail the notability test, and thus cannot have their own pages. Other than being manufactured by Prusa Research, what makes the Mini and the XL notable?
 * These printers belong in a separate Prusa Research page, with considerably reduced detail. -- Doktor Züm (talk) 06:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, better that the Mini and the XL should move to a revived Prusa Research article. I regret I do not have the time to lay that foundation properly. EasilyAmused (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * From the Prusa Mini talk page:
 * > Just to clarify, I would love to see the i3, Mini and XL (and all my favourite tech toys) having separate, high detailed pages [...]. But that's not what Wikipedia is for. Based on notability, and the needs and expectations of a general readership, I think the i3 and Prusa Research can each justify separate pages, but the Mini and XL cannot, and so belong on the Prusa Research page, as "also rans", ie, brief mentions. -- Doktor Züm (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Although a counter-argument is that, if the Mini and XL are getting significant coverage in reliable sources, then they warrant their own article, ie, they are notable. I'm coming around to this point of view. -- Doktor Züm (talk) 04:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree at the moment the layout is quite confusing, The Prusament article feels quite out of place. Prusa slicer isn't mentioned which feels quite odd too. It feels like the page is trying to multitask; Prusa Research, I3 printers. I think there should be a Prusa research page, I can get a very rough draft done but am very new to wikipedia still. Carrottsandoranges (talk) 03:31, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Lack of images for later vesions
Is there any reason that there are not images for later generations of the printer? Loupedecker (talk) 08:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)