Talk:PlayStation Portable-3000

Explain/Expand on How PSP-3000 Might Block Homebrew/Hacks?

Would it be helpful to explain how the PSP-3000 might block homebrew and hacks? It would in fact be an obvious thing of Sony to do but would one have to wait until there is proof and when (or if) the hacking community can't hack it with what is currently available? There are a few sources that foreshadow that this will be true (here and here) but in order for this to be on Wikipedia it has to be proven right? (P.S. Sorry if I'm doing something wrong or not correctly following a policy or convention since I'm very new here). Game4set (talk) 08:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That's something that is going to have to wait until people get hands on experience with it. How it might block hacks is purely speculation, and is thus not appropriate for an encyclopedia. You definitely did a good job following conventions by bringing this up on the talk page first, so I'd say you're doing a good job so far. Welcome! KhalfaniKhaldun 17:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You can probably quote reliable sources speculating on how it might stop hacks.Mr T (Based) (talk) 18:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The only thing that's really known right now is it will have a different motherboard and probably wont work with Pandora. There's even a TA-88 v3 motherboard of the PSP2000 that doesn't work with Pandora. There's no point in adding it to the article though, just be patient. Akadewboy (talk) 05:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Need Image

This article needs an image of the PSP-3000. Yooo67 (talk) 04:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There's plenty out there, but still no fair use I'm sure. 66.168.19.135 (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

White

How come no mention of the "Pearl White" http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?p=784475 PSP-3000? Has it been cancelled? ^---SilentRAGE! 05:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's only in Japan, I think... Yooo67 (talk) 04:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

PSP-3000 was not delayed

The references saying that the PSP-3000 was pushed back are not acurate. The gamespot one says that it is coming out on the 15th in europe, but that the PS3 is coming out on the 31st. Maybe it was misread, which, judging from the wording, would be easy to do. As for the Amazon.com link, it is not viable because it is an anticpiated date, not the official date released by Sony. As far as I can tell, the dates are still the 14th for NA, the 15th for Europe, and the 16th for Austrailia.

I am not adept in the HTML language, and I really don't want to screw this article up. So could somebody please edit this for me? MastrCake (talk) 01:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Think it's sorted now, nicely pointed out.Mr T (Based) (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr T. MastrCake (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

PSP Brite? and AUS Release Date

Two webpages to look at, first one says that the PSP 3000 will have the commercial name of PSP Brite. Is this a reliable source? http://www.joystiq.com/tag/psp-3000

Second one is about the release date for the psp 3000 in Australia http://www.mypsp.com.au/NewsDetail.aspx?id=801

Please, could an admin or someone higher check this out and add the nessacary infomation into the article.

Thanks, user:dingyv03

ps. also check out this http://www.pspfanboy.com/tag/psp-brite.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.142.250 (talk) 06:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Reason for page move?

I was under the impression that page moves to "better article titles" should always be discussed on the talk page before someone arbitrarily moves the page based on their own judgment. So, what do other authors think of this page move? Anyone agree with me and think that it was not a good idea? KhalfaniKhaldun 08:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions, and specifically Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). PSP-3000 series is definitely not the most popular name for the subject of this article. That name is "PlayStation Portable". As there's already an article at that title, we need to disambiguate it somehow, and that's where the "PSP-3000" moniker comes in. And no, page moves do not need to be discussed prior to being performed, especially when they're uncontroversial. See Wikipedia:Requested moves.

Now, briefly back to the subject of the article title: I'll confess that I wasn't sure if "Slim and Lite" belonged in the title, but as this is basically just a few minor revisions to the PSP-2000 series (the "Slim and Lite") I didn't believe the name would change. Is the 3000 series still called this? If not, we can probably move the page to PlayStation Portable (PSP-3000 series) to shorten the title. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. "When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?" The new title certainly does not apply to that common name convention. The most common name for all three versions of this product is the PSP. For this version, it is definitely just PSP-3000. Have you read any of the source articles? It isn't referred to by any other name, aside from the unofficial PSP-Brite, which seems to only be used in one venue. In addition, the Slim and Lite name has never been applied to the 3000 series, even by Sony, so this is not an appropriate name. The fact that you "don't believe" the name would change is pure speculation (please note point number 2 there). I think the only move argument you could have actually provided for moving the original article would have been to move it to "PSP (3000 series)" or just "PSP-3000." Basically my point is that I didn't really have a problem with the article being moved, but the name it was moved to was in no way (from what I can tell) appropriate for the subject. KhalfaniKhaldun 17:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry I didn't ask. But this is a wiki, it's not like the whole world came crashing down because I moved it. And I'm certainly not going to feel guilty for getting it away from what was a poorly constructed title. So, being constructive, if you'd like to move it to PlayStation Portable (PSP-3000 series), I have no problem with that. I would not, however, support it being moved to any title reducing "PlayStation Portable" to "PSP". By the way, before you go making assumptions about the motivations of people on here, you might want to read over this: assume good faith. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I come off strong, it seems I have upset you. However you must understand that it's difficult to assume good faith when the first time an editor shows up in an article's history is by moving from one title to another title that was at least equally poorly constructed. I do, however, apologize for offending you. KhalfaniKhaldun 20:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd really like to hear from more editors on this topic before moving the article again. Anyone else? KhalfaniKhaldun 20:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I freely admit to not being overly-familiar with article naming conventions. The PSP-3000 series is just a hardware revision of the Slim and Lite, it will be sold as the S&L AFAIK, but the most popular term for it is the PSP-3000. So we could use either and have an 'accurate' title.Mr T (Based) (talk) 21:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Right, but the product is still called "PlayStation Portable", yes? And that's the issue at hand. Sure, this specific model of the PlayStation Portable may be the PSP-3000 series (or "PSP Brite" or whatever), but the base name is still "PlayStation Portable". The product name didn't change, merely the model. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK, yes, it will still be sold as the PSP S&L, but the most popular name used currently, to differentiate it from the PSP S&L 2000 is PSP-3000.Mr T (Based) (talk) 11:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Right, and that's what this title ("PlayStation Portable Slim and Lite (PSP-3000 series)") does-- uses the most common name ("PlayStation Portable Slim and Lite"), then uses the "PSP-3000 series" specifier to further refine the title. This is exactly how titles are constructed on Wikipedia. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

"PlayStation Portable Slim and Lite" isn't the most common name for the previous model ("PSP Slim & Lite"), and it is certainly not the most common name for this model ("PSP-3000"). The whole argument seems to be based on the assumption that this is a minor revision of the previous model, and thus would be marketed as or referred to by that name. There is no strong evidence of that, from Sony or anywhere else. The truth is that the PSP Slim & Lite was not a dramatic revision of the original PSP, either. This only matters to the hardcore segment. Sony does not place much emphasis on the different PSP models or their names, and the box art for the upcoming bundles does not seem to feature any prominent indication of the new model. Dancter (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

If it's not the most common name, what is? And please, provide evidence/sources that this other name is more ingrained in human consciousness than the product name itself. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Like I pointed out earlier, all of the sources listed on this page refer to it as the PSP-3000, which to me seems to be enough to indicate that is its common name. KhalfaniKhaldun 22:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That name is only used to make it unambiguous what revision of the PSP is being discussed, not because that's what people will call it in practice. Just as people refer to the PSP-2000 series as "PSP Slim" in articles to make it clear which model is being discussed. The product is still "PlayStation Portable". —Locke Cole • t • c 00:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I beleve this has mulituple issues

Like does not cover most of the features and is minorly out to date —Preceding unsigned comment added by A1a2s (talk • contribs) 19:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)