Talk:Arcadia 2001: Difference between revisions
public domain abandonware |
Tag: |
||
| (29 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start| |
|||
{{ |
{{WikiProject Video games|class=Start|importance=Mid}} |
||
}} |
|||
{{refideas |
|||
|1=https://archive.org/details/technopolis-volume-9-april-1983/page/34/mode/1up |
|||
|2=https://archive.org/details/technopolis-volume-15-october-1983/page/82/mode/1up |
|||
}} |
|||
== sprot? Dare I ask why? == |
== sprot? Dare I ask why? == |
||
I can't imagine that there exists a community of dedicated Arcadia 2001 vandals large enough to truly interfere with Wiki matters. Of course, I can't imagine that there exists a community of dedicated Arcadia 2001 ''users'' large or active enough to really require fresh, newly-registered updates. --[[User:Action Jackson IV|Action Jackson IV]] 09:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC) |
I can't imagine that there exists a community of dedicated Arcadia 2001 vandals large enough to truly interfere with Wiki matters. Of course, I can't imagine that there exists a community of dedicated Arcadia 2001 ''users'' large or active enough to really require fresh, newly-registered updates. --[[User:Action Jackson IV|Action Jackson IV]] 09:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
It's just one user doing the vandalism, very persistent in continuing to vandalise though and doing it from multiple IPs, even 6 years later. Suggest sproting this page again. [[Special:Contributions/101.117.85.170|101.117.85.170]] ([[User talk:101.117.85.170|talk]]) 04:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Umm... == |
== Umm... == |
||
| Line 12: | Line 20: | ||
== public domain abandonware == |
== public domain abandonware == |
||
I removed the statement that the games had been released into the public domain as abandonware. Abandonware isn't a real word and has no legal meaning. As for releasing something into public domain; there needs to be a proper citation to |
I removed the statement that the games had been released into the public domain as abandonware. Abandonware isn't a real word and has no legal meaning. As for releasing something into public domain; there needs to be a proper citation to legally prove this to be true. |
||
== WP:OR and unreliable reference. == |
|||
I have made this change and has been "undid" "per WP:OR and unreliable reference." |
|||
I write under here what I wrote/find, so if more references are found and became common idea and no more a WP:OR, we can reintroduce the paragraph. |
|||
You can see that I have found another ref: http://amigan.1emu.net/digarch/2001-faq.htm#overview |
|||
What do you think? |
|||
Some time ago everybody thought that Emerson licensed the Arcadia 2001 worldwide, |
|||
that all 30 software compatible consoles was clones of Arcadia. |
|||
Today |
|||
ref: http://amigan.1emu.net/digarch/2001-faq.htm#overview (new ref! not present in my first writing!) |
|||
ref: http://mess.redump.net/sysinfo:arcadia |
|||
ref: http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?st=2&c=835 |
|||
we can say that the manufacturers of the chipset 2650/2637, Philips-Signetics, |
|||
produced the console and licenced it to others companies over the world with different names, |
|||
different cartrige dimensions but all of them software compatible. So we can't say that Arcadia 2001 |
|||
is the origin of the family; it's only the most famous of it. --[[User:Arosio Stefano|Arosio Stefano]] ([[User talk:Arosio Stefano|talk]]) 21:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:1)It was written in a completely unencylopedic, personal tone with very broken english. 2) None of those meet Wikipedia's guidelines on [[WP:RELIABLE]]. --[[User:Wgungfu|Marty Goldberg]] ([[User talk:Wgungfu|talk]]) 01:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 09:59, 24 January 2024
 | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
sprot? Dare I ask why?
[edit]I can't imagine that there exists a community of dedicated Arcadia 2001 vandals large enough to truly interfere with Wiki matters. Of course, I can't imagine that there exists a community of dedicated Arcadia 2001 users large or active enough to really require fresh, newly-registered updates. --Action Jackson IV 09:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
It's just one user doing the vandalism, very persistent in continuing to vandalise though and doing it from multiple IPs, even 6 years later. Suggest sproting this page again. 101.117.85.170 (talk) 04:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Umm...
[edit]Why is it semi-locked? just wondering... --72.87.32.148 20:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
public domain abandonware
[edit]I removed the statement that the games had been released into the public domain as abandonware. Abandonware isn't a real word and has no legal meaning. As for releasing something into public domain; there needs to be a proper citation to legally prove this to be true.
WP:OR and unreliable reference.
[edit]I have made this change and has been "undid" "per WP:OR and unreliable reference." I write under here what I wrote/find, so if more references are found and became common idea and no more a WP:OR, we can reintroduce the paragraph.
You can see that I have found another ref: http://amigan.1emu.net/digarch/2001-faq.htm#overview
What do you think?
Some time ago everybody thought that Emerson licensed the Arcadia 2001 worldwide, that all 30 software compatible consoles was clones of Arcadia. Today ref: http://amigan.1emu.net/digarch/2001-faq.htm#overview (new ref! not present in my first writing!) ref: http://mess.redump.net/sysinfo:arcadia ref: http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?st=2&c=835 we can say that the manufacturers of the chipset 2650/2637, Philips-Signetics, produced the console and licenced it to others companies over the world with different names, different cartrige dimensions but all of them software compatible. So we can't say that Arcadia 2001 is the origin of the family; it's only the most famous of it. --Arosio Stefano (talk) 21:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- 1)It was written in a completely unencylopedic, personal tone with very broken english. 2) None of those meet Wikipedia's guidelines on WP:RELIABLE. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 01:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)