Talk:Arcadia 2001: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
noting Image:Arcadia baseball.gif is about to be deleted WP:NONFREE |
Tag: |
||
| (26 intermediate revisions by 10 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 14: | Line 22: | ||
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. |
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. == |
|||
==Fair use rationale for Image:Arcadia baseball.gif== |
|||
[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|70px|left]] |
|||
I have made this change and has been "undid" "per WP:OR and unreliable reference." |
|||
'''[[:Image:Arcadia baseball.gif]]''' is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under [[Wikipedia:Fair use|fair use]] but there is no [[Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline|explanation or rationale]] as to why its use in '''this''' Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the [[Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Fair use|boilerplate fair use template]], you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with [[WP:FU|fair use]]. |
|||
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? |
|||
Please go to [[:Image:Arcadia baseball.gif|the image description page]] and edit it to include a [[Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline |fair use rationale]]. Using one of the templates at [[Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline]] is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. |
|||
Some time ago everybody thought that Emerson licensed the Arcadia 2001 worldwide, |
|||
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Images.2FMedia|criteria for speedy deletion]]. If you have any questions please ask them at the [[Wikipedia:Media copyright questions|Media copyright questions page]]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Missing rationale2 --> |
|||
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) |
|||
[[User:BetacommandBot|BetacommandBot]] ([[User talk:BetacommandBot|talk]]) 05:38, 2 January 2008 (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)