Talk:RISCOS Ltd

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of the RISC OS task force, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.

Request for undeletion[edit]

The undeletion request has been granted. Please note the following:

The previous talk page has not returned. As it's expected to be of little relevance in resurrecting this article, I'm going to leave it like that - but if you want it back then you could ask at the relevant place.
References to be added to meet notability requirements.
To be moved to RISCOS Ltd in due course. Doing so in its current state may attract controversy regarding notability, so IMHO it's best left as an orphan for the time being.

--Trevj (talk) 11:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move proposal[edit]

Inbound links referring to this company use RISCOS Ltd. Direct links to RISCOS are not in main namespace.
Guidance at Naming conventions states that 'The legal status suffix of a company [...] is not normally included in the article title [...]' and recommends the use of 'an appended "(company)", or other suffix'. However, in this case RISCOS Ltd is often simply abbreviated in the comp.sys.acorn.* newsgroups and elsewhere as ROL, which would be reflected in the proposed name. Use of RISCOS (company) would IMHO be clumsy in articles discussing RISC OS.
Subject to opinions here and the arising consensus, a move to RISCOS Ltd may have to be undertaken by an admin because a page with that name previously existed. AIUI that could be accomplished in the future by placing {{subst:requested move|RISCOS Ltd}} Page previously existed. Recent discussion at [[Talk:RISCOS#Move proposal]] here on this page.
In conjunction with the proposed move, I also suggest that "(ROL)" be considered for appending after first use of the term RISCOS Ltd (outside of the main article itself). Subsequent occurrences could then be replaced with "ROL" dependent on the context (provided reader confusion is avoided).

--Trevj (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Trevj (talk) 11:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of File:RISC OS 4.02 ROMs.jpg[edit]

File:RISC OS 4.02 ROMs.jpg was removed with this edit. Presumably this is in connection with commons:File talk:RISC OS 4.02 ROMs.jpg. Is there really an issue with the use of this image? It doesn't depict anyone and is just a simple shot of some hardware. I intend to reinstate it unless there's a good reason not to. I believe the relevant policy at Commons is COM:DEL. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 03:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortuanately I can't remember exactly what this picture was, I think it was a pic of 2 roms with ROL branding on top plugged into a machine, if so I can take another pic and upload to commons. This way we can respect the original photographers decission.--Flibble (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They're in the box rather than in a machine, and in fact ATM are still present on Commons. I could take a similar replacement photo myself... if I'd not misplaced my camera's battery charger! -- Trevj (talk) 12:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now reinstating this for the following reasons:

The coming "under attack" explanation could do with further substantiation - I can't see how a photo of such ROMs (which could be replicated by others) would warrant any sort of justified attack
Almost 6 months have passed, the deletion request doesn't seem to be have been properly presented and has not been acted upon
The editor (and associated IP) do not appear to have followed this issue up
A replacement image has not been provided by either of us
The image does not appear to contain any content copyrightable by anyone other than the photographer, who originally released it under CC-BY-2.0
I believe that the licence, once granted, is irrevocable - and the grounds given in the deletion request do not specify any libel or such issues (which may not necessarily be given greater importance than the original licence anyway)

-- Trevj (talk) 08:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Risc OS ltd dissolved?[edit]

Is Risc Ltd now dissolved? In the opening paragraph it states that Risc OS has been brought by 3QD- On or before 4 March 2013 3QD Developments took over RISC OS from RISCOS Ltd and it is unlikely that RISCOS Ltd will be able to continue beyond the short term.[3][4]

And in the history section it says- On 29 January 2013 RISCOS Ltd was listed in the London Gazette: it will be struck from the register of companies and dissolved three months after the listing unless cause is shown to the contrary. [6]

On Companies House their status is 'Active - Proposal to Strike off', account and returns over due Company No. 03694488

BTW it should be stated which version of Risc OS 3QD have brought, ie ROL not ROOL http://riscos.blog.com/2013/03/31/3qd-acquires-risc-os-4-and-6/ Jonpatterns (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intro/History duplication[edit]

There is a lot duplicated information in the Intro and History sections. I suggest making the History comprehensive and shortening the Intro. What do people think? Jonpatterns (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem I think. --Egel _Reaction? 16:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! Sounds sensible to me, as the intro should be a summary of the contents of the article, per WP:LEAD. Therefore I think the intro could include a shortened history and also mention RO4, RO6 and licensing via emulation. -- Trevj (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]