PowerBook 100 under FA Review

edit

I have nominated PowerBook 100 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. George Ho (talk) 08:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey DIA, saw your comments on the FAR page. Obviously the missing context is something I highlighted on the talk page, but I don't particularly see where that argues against a consolidation. The 100 has some design info that's separate, but there's a lot of redundant info across them (or it would be redundant if the 140 and 170 actually covered the info that's in the 100 article at present) and they were released as a set. Perhaps the 100 has enough separate reception and development info to be better apart, but that's not really evident at present. Regardless, I'm probably going to work on the PowerBook 100 series as a parent article with an eye to merging the other minor SKUs there; perhaps the 100 fits best there ultimately, perhaps not. Cheers! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 23:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi David, I apologize if I sounded kind of curt in that reply on the FAR page. I do think that most entires in the 100 line are independently notable and warrant their own pages. Many, many dead-tree magazines, newspapers, and even several published books spilled a lot of ink about the nuances of the individual models, and I think that consolidation wouldn't do justice to the coverage. I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but it's like the difference between the various iPhones, iPhone Pros, and iPhone SEs across the years, all of which have their own articles.
Being that the bulk of the sources were published before the Internet, Google is very terrible at uncovering them, but I have access to ProQuest, Gale, and Newspapers.com, and I can tell you that sources number in the hundreds. As you can tell by my user page, I am trying desperately to rescue articles on vintage technology—it is frustrating dealing with the allergy to secondary sources that most of the article stewards had, but I also can't blame them because Google genuinely is so bad at scrounging up the relevant literature. It makes for very a recentist landscape on Wikipedia, where we have hundreds of articles on individual gaming consoles, smartphones, tablets, every flavor and subcomponent of Linux ever, etc. but their ancestors get a one sentence mention if they're lucky, all because the databases don't allow themselves to be indexed by Google. DigitalIceAge (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hey, no worries, I didn't feel you were curt. I don't disagree with them being notable, it's more whether or not they're better pages discussed in aggregate than apart (basically WP:PAGEDECIDE stuff.) I've been using a bunch of books and online databases to improve our iMac coverage so I'm definitely familiar with how much you need to search beyond Google these days, especially for pre-ubiquitous internet stuff. But there's plenty of other places to improve that don't have any apparent will to do something about them so I'm probably going to keep chipping away there. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

More redirect requests

edit

Hi. Can you please redirect these two?102.156.65.169 (talk) 13:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Excuse me?102.159.156.200 (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I don't understand the request. DigitalIceAge (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Set them to target here, if you don't mind.102.159.156.200 (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Done. DigitalIceAge (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Can you redirect user:torai to user:tóraí, its associated talk page and possibly others and distinguish any of them to user:torai~enwiki and/or its talk page?102.159.156.200 (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Nevermind.Reply
I am not allowed to create redirects to userpages. DigitalIceAge (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I apologize for making that request. Thank you anyways.102.159.156.200 (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
No prob. DigitalIceAge (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Do you have access to create templates?

If you did, please don't 4get to transclude them to their respective articles. (Hint: Follow the example of Template:Latest stable software release/Microsoft Office 2016 for Mac)41.230.176.126 (talk) 19:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Done. DigitalIceAge (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Can you please redirect PENSONIC to pensonic Group? Also, happy third anniversary to your account creation as well as first edit.41.230.168.159 (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Done. And thank you! DigitalIceAge (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Conglomerate companies disestablished in 2024

edit
 

A tag has been placed on Category:Conglomerate companies disestablished in 2024 indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 00:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

List of Computer Chronicles episodes

edit

Hi, I am wondering where you got the Original air dates from? Some videos on the archive have a record date in the beginning, others a broadcast date, others nothing. ZombieLeChuck (talk) 11:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't exactly remember, but I think I got the air dates from TheTVDB.com. Reliable sources about dates are hard to come by; I could probably find newspaper columns on Newspapers.com establishing the air dates of individual episodes, but unfortunately that service is down right now. DigitalIceAge (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I just found a site with people who take care of retrieving meta data from the tapes (https://computerchronicles.karpour.net/). Will see if they correspond. Thanks! ZombieLeChuck (talk) 07:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Help for Draft:Siliconix

edit

Hi, me again. Given your expertise in similar old tech companies' histories, I would like to ask your help in Siliconix article that is in draft. Only extensive info that I could find about the company were Vishay webpage, EEJournal curation and news regarding Vishay's acquisition of the company. As far as I remember you have a good collection of old tech magazines so it would be awesome if you can find more, better sources. Thanks in advance! VectorVoyager (talk) 14:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Punching in '"Siliconix" "Hugle"' into Google Books I'm seeing a number of good books that discuss the company's history at length. Unfortunately most are only in snippet form. I'll see what I can do. Right now I'm waiting for the WMF to repair Wikipedia Library proxy login access to Newspapers.com, as that's been invaluable to me in researching defunct tech companies in particular. DigitalIceAge (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have sent you a note about a page you started

edit

Hi DigitalIceAge. Thank you for your work on Technology Connections. Another editor, Sdkb, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

This article was quite recently deleted at AfD. It seems you've created it independently, possibly unaware of that. You have a few sources not discussed at the AfD, but they're pretty iffy in terms of qualifying for notability, so on the whole this article is still on shaky ground. As such, I'm removing its autopatrolled status to give an independent reviewer the opportunity to check its notability.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Sdkb}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Sdkbtalk 15:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, I was aware of the AfD nomination; that's how I found some of the sources needed to flesh out the page. The article cites plenty of sources with sigcov of Watson's channel, with plenty of opinion and not just mere rote regurgitation of his videos. For example, in a pretty beefy paragraph with editorializing and all, Consumer Reports cites Watson as a direct inspiration for the magazine performing a thorough investigation of the problem he brings up in the video. Which caused Hyundai to respond to CR promising to address the issue! Not what I would call "passing coverage"! DigitalIceAge (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply