@number6

My stance is wait and see. Then, when dust settles, rewrite when necessary. I did the same during edit-war concerning (not)bancruptcy of Hyperion in 2015.

Rewriting big articles takes time, which I devote to other aspects of life (playing video games ), so I rather pursue only minor corrections, updates and reverting vandalism. Sometimes, when an Amiga article is in danger of deletion (like CAMD driver one just few weeks ago), I do proper research for sources with full rewrite.

If you have any info you want to add, feel free to post desired changes here (or on the article talkpage, or - of course - you may edit Wikipedia yourself).

If the list is not too long, I may research for best sources myself. Probably not before this weekend (I have another non-Amiga related article to save right now).

@pavlor

I won't argue you change the wording now.
But logically if you feel it stands at present as accurate, then it is not only a part of Amiga_Inc wiki, but should also be included in Hyperion wiki as part of their history, simply due to the naming of both parties.

But I do have an upgrade that does meet your criteria for having a legal document backed up by a news article:

Hyperion wiki:
Quote:

In 2009, Hyperion changed legal status from business partnership (VOF) to company with limited liability (CVBA).[34]

The associated legal document has been public knowledge for like ever. heh.
http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/tsv_pdf/2009/04/23/09058928.pdf

Whereas the article only indicates this took place at some time prior to writing the article, the legal document gives you the exact date to enter in the timeline, which does use specific dates both before and after that entry.

#6

Last edited by number6 on 11-Apr-2019 at 04:01 PM.

_________________
This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author.
*Secrecy has served us so well*

@pavlor

Gateway wiki history still mentions Amiga

Amiga expunged entirely from Gateway wiki history

Any clue as to the reasoning behind eliminating this history?

#6

_________________
This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author.
*Secrecy has served us so well*

@number6

Quote:

Any clue as to the reasoning behind eliminating this history?

Check my post 708 in this thread.


I had returning this information to the Gateway article on my to-do list, but I (apparently...) forgot. Same for your request above. Must find some time on the next weekend (so, if you have any other request, feel free to fire it at me).

@pavlor

Just a reminder.

Your entry for Hyperion Entertainment changing from VOF to CVBA still links to the article with vague dating.
Please review my prior post. It meets your criteria for requiring both a news story (which you have) and an actual legal document (which I posted).
This allows you to post a specific date for this event.

#6

_________________
This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author.
*Secrecy has served us so well*

@number6

I would hope if this is Hyperion/Colanto revising history to suit their legal claims, no judge would use Wikipedia to make the basis of a decision.

_________________
Amiga A1200, 3.1 ROMs, Blizzard 1230 MKIV 64MB & FPU, 4GB DoM SSD, Workbench 3.1

@pavlor

Just curiosity on my part.

Are there any plans to either add to the existing Amiga Corporation wiki, or create a new one for the new Amiga Corporation?

#6

_________________
This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author.
*Secrecy has served us so well*

@number6

There are indeed, plans to add Vampire Standalone to the wikipedia.

_________________
Vampire V4 Standalone R6 + VBL R6
running: AmigaOS 1.3 / 3.1 / 3.1.4.1 / 3.9, AmiKit XE, Coffin, ApolloOS & AROS

@number6

Well, the main issue here is notability (in Wikipedia sense). Creating an article about some new company requires so many "reliable sources", it is next to impossible to write one about a mere one-man startup. It is much easier in case of old applications (two reviews are enough), but new companies are like a red flag for most regular Wikipedia editors and their articles are deleted without mercy, because sourcing requirement is too high.

I think best course of action right now would be to add a small paragraph about this corporation to other Amiga related articles (eg. Amiga and History of the Amiga; already mentioned in the Amiga, Inc. article). There may be a possible problem when using in-Amiga-bubble sources ("due weight"), but I´m quite sure nobody will care.

Feel free (anybody) to do this (I may correct and format this later). In any case, I will look into it during this weekend (until my memory fails as usual...).

@DiskDoctor

I would really like to look at that article before publication, so we may get rid of common errors ("red flags"). It may end like Natami article otherwise.

@pavlor

No rush. Finalization of documentation regarding trademark and other aspects will come shortly and I'm sure you would prefer more information in hand before the effort is made.

Different topic:
As OP you can change this thread title. Is it worth considering change to something like "Amiga and related articles on Wikipedia"? since the thread has more to do with discussion in general than the specific incidents we discussed prior concerning AmigaOne.

#6

Last edited by number6 on 18-Feb-2021 at 02:02 PM.

_________________
This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author.
*Secrecy has served us so well*

@pavlor

I hate to bring this up a 3rd time, but I see your reference to the change from VOF to CVBA remains the following article without reference to exact date:
http://obligement.free.fr/articles/actuenbref09102009.php

Once again I'll mention that such an exact date -does- exist in the legal documentation:
http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/tsv_pdf/2009/04/23/09058928.pdf

If your hesitancy is due to your preferred additional support of a news article, please let me know, and I'll get some news agency to issue same.
Given Trevor and David are writing factual accounts, having some actual dated documents might serve them well.

In addition, I see some activity on the wiki.
Can you tell me what information you are lacking a valid source/sources for?

Thanks as always,

#6

_________________
This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author.
*Secrecy has served us so well*

@number6

Quote:

but I see your reference to the change from VOF to CVBA remains the following article without reference to exact date:

Quote:

please let me know, and I'll get some news agency to issue same.

Is an exact date really THAT important?

Secondary sources are always preferred - primary sources often require an interpretation. There is also a question of due weight: if no secondary source cares about some topic, why it should be even included in the article?

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit (or so they say), it should not be an one-person-show/burden (especially if that person´s memory is failing and his/her free time is consumed by other good for nothing activities... like playing video games ).

From my point of view, most of the Amiga history after the late 1990s is only marginally notable in the Wikipedia sense. Yet most activity I saw in the last few years was dedicated to nearly shameless promotion of "latest and greatest" Amiga achievements nobody outside of our own bubble really cares (with few exceptions).

@pavlor

Quote:

Is an exact date really THAT important?

To you and I perhaps not. To someone writing a book or pursuing a legal case, perhaps. Either way, not our job. heh.

The balance of your post I understand completely. I do not think your feelings about this are unique.

Take care,

#6

_________________
This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author.
*Secrecy has served us so well*