Talk:Acorn Computers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Acorn Computers is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
April 11, 2005 Peer review Reviewed
October 12, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted
May 18, 2008 Featured article review Demoted
Current status: Former featured article
Version 0.5      (Rated B-Class)
Peer review This Engtech article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.


          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Computing / RISC OS (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject RISC OS (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject Business (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Request for references[edit]

Today I added a lot of "Citation Needed" to sections of the article. There are a lot of facts asserted without any ability to verify them.

--Flibble (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Acorn World[edit]

I wonder if anyone else remembers the Acorn World shows I attended as a child (apologies if that makes any senior Wikipedians feel, well, more senior...). I know they ended in 1998 with the demise of the company and they were just fairly standard computer shows. Anyone think it would be worth including a paragraph about them? DarkWedge (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

'Corporate affairs': possible new section[edit]

The addition of this heading could allow for coverage of (amongst other things):

  • Show organisation
  • Clan Acorn
  • Means of communication with developers
  • Manufacturing locations (I believe some BBC micros were subcontracted but perhaps later on Acorn did all their own manufacturing)
  • Overseas offices

There is such a section included at both Apple Inc.#Corporate affairs and Microsoft#Corporate affairs. Any objections? Any further subheadings? (It could be drafted in userspace first.) --Trevj (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

List of Managing Directors? Investments in other companies? joint ventures?--Flibble (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I've now made a (slow) start on this. I've no objection to that draft being added to by others before it's copied to the main article. --Trevj (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I spent a little time a while back looking up refs for the MD/CEO and Chairmam, here's what I have so far, User:Flibble/Acorn_Stuff#People--Flibble (talk) 18:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'm (kind of) still working on this. Will incorporate some time when it's properly cited, etc. (I'm now striking through my "add by others" suggestion above, because that will be problematic with licensing/attribution.) -- Trevj (talk) 10:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

ART[edit]

This edit removed the statement about ART working on Galileo. The statement was included because it's in the reference. Is anyone able to shed any further light on this, please (with refs)? Chrisbtoo, perhaps you have some first hand knowledge. Is Dick Pountain's article incorrect? Thanks. --Trevj (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Network Computers[edit]

Would it be clearer to move some of the content in Acorn Computers#Network Computers to Acorn Network Computer? A brief summary could of course be retained at Acorn Computers#Network Computers, per WP:SPINOFF. If this is not done, the two sections may need harmonising, in which case {{Sync}} can be used until that's done. --Trevj (talk) 08:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Split-apart[edit]

Splitting out some of the notable content could improve readability of the main article. Short summary style pieces would be included in the main article, based on the leads of the spinout articles.

  1. History of Acorn's 8-bit microcomputers
  2. History of the Advanced RISC Machine
  3. End of Acorn Computers

--Trevj (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Or we could not spend our time just randomly moving the content about and improve it instead? Two of the sections you suggest splitting off are badly in need significant validation.--Flibble (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
My apologies, certain sections are now much better referenced, however given the historic nature of the company, I don't think splitting the article further is particulaly justified, it's certainly not a long article for a company that developed notable products for 20 years.--Flibble (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree, I think it's best to keep the historical narrative in one place, given the reasonable size of the article. Letdorf (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC).
We have some content forking with Acorn Computers#New RISC architecture / ARM architecture#History and Acorn Computers#Final restructuring and Element 14 Ltd (1998–2000) / History of RISC OS#Demise of Acorn Computers Ltd. The proposals would simplify maintenance of the aritcles and keep the historical narrative in one place as Letdorf says. I feel that it will be easier to (continue to) improve content if it's not forked. --Trevj (talk) 12:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Even with the content forking, I still don't agree with splitting these sections out into independent articles. In each case the content should reside in one of the articles in a section with the other article referencing it with a
Main article: Main Article
and having a summary of the bits relevant to that articles. E.g. Acorn Computers#Final restructuring and Element 14 Ltd (1998–2000) / History of RISC OS#Demise of Acorn Computers Ltd should keep the content in the Acorn Computers article, and let the RISC OS one summarise the impact that those events had on RISC OS. As for the ARM history split I'm less bothered about which way it goes, though it could well be that the acorn section would do as a 'pre 1990 spinout' section on the ARM page, or just reference to section in the Acorn.--Flibble (talk) 14:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
{{Main}} doesn't talk about sections but the sub-article that has been (or will be) summarised. However, the link does work with sections. An advantage of sub-articles is that wikilinks from other articles (e.g. RISCOS Ltd, Castle Technology, Pace plc) can permanently link to a standalone article when the term is used. Without sub-articles, renaming of section headings breaks such links. IMO if a subject/event is notable it is a valid candidate to be spun out in its own article. --Trevj (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I think we should spend a short while comparing how Good articles in various subject areas handle this, in order to further inform the discussion. Then perhaps we can point WT:COMP here for additional input. --Trevj (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
And dedicated article at WP:MOS#Main article link too. Anyway, will do a bit of research when I get the time. --Trevj (talk) 07:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────RIght, just had a quick look. Unfortunately the handful of articles I picked (criteria were GA of Top importance over various WikiProjects) didn't yield many with {{Main}} links. I'll have a further look when I've more time. For reference, the articles were: Alan Turing, Constitution of Virginia and Shiva. --Trevj (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


It looks like this discussion has stalled and not reached consensus. I'm removing the split tag from ARM architecture. --Salix (talk): 12:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - it was looking a little untidy there. I guess the discussion here may pick up again in the future, especially if split no.2 (History of the Advanced RISC Machine) proceeds: there seems little opposition to this (although there is some ambiguity in Letdorf's comment). --Trevj (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Re: History of the Advanced RISC Machine, there's a recent interview with John Biggs. -- Trevj (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Also The History of The ARM Architecture: From Inception to IPO (PDF requiring registration for download). -- Trevj (talk) 12:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Tablet PC / eNewspaper - Prototypes[edit]

Is it worth adding a few words on Acorn's early 1990's work on an ARM based Tablet PC's / eNewspaper?

109.144.208.14 (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The NewsPAD and Stork? The former has a ref at cnet.com but a reliable source is still needed for the latter. Please feel free to contribute! Thanks. --Trevj (talk) 05:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Added a few words and ref's — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.51.74 (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Great stuff! I've put just included a bit of info from the above CNET piece too. Here are some further refs about the overall project which I've found but haven't got time to include content from now.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] And do you think this is a trademark registration? -- Trevj (talk) 09:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Acorn-Netstation.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg

An image used in this article, File:Acorn-Netstation.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Image isn't going to be deleted anymore.--Flibble (talk) 11:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Vintage Ads[edit]

I've just found A History of the Early Computer Industry in Advertising Form, which may be of some interest here. -- Trevj (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

History section is very confusing[edit]

I find this very confusing, but don't want to fix what look like obviously confusing names and references since company names can change quickly and in confusing ways:

Early history On 25 July 1961, Clive Sinclair founded Sinclair Radionics to develop and sell electronic devices such as calculators. The failure of the Black Watch wristwatch and the calculator market's move from LEDs to LCDs led to financial problems, and Sinclair approached the National Enterprise Board (NEB) for help. After losing control of the company to the NEB, Sinclair encouraged Chris Curry to leave Radionics and get Science of Cambridge (SoC) up and running. In June 1978, SoC launched a microcomputer kit, the Mk 14, that Curry wanted to develop further, but Sinclair could not be persuaded so Curry resigned. During the development of the Mk 14, Hermann Hauser, a friend of Curry's, had been visiting SoC's offices and had grown interested in the product

Who lost control of the company - the person Clive Sinclair? Or the company Sinclair lost control of itself (taken over by NEB)? Was Clive starting SoC up himself? Did Curry actually indeed get SoC up and running? What did Curry resign from and why is that related to the MK 14? ★NealMcB★ (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)