Talk:Sinclair Research Ltd.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Famicom style controller This article is part of WikiProject Computer and video games, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of Mid priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.

Good articles Sinclair Research Ltd. has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Peer review Sinclair Research Ltd. has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents

[edit] Merge needed

This article should be merged with the one at Sinclair Research, not just redirected from it. Otherwise the history of the article gets obscured. -- DrBob 18:05, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea :-) how ??? Lmno 19:28, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] SRL?

Isn't SRL an abbreviation for a company suffix, like Ltd., or Inc.? --ZekeMacNeil 20:49, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, there is the French "SARL" form of an LLC; might that be the one you were thinking of? --Wernher 02:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Table alignment trouble

Hi, I have now put some long needed space around the profit/turnover table, to get some distance to the text flow, but after some trying and failing I'm still unable to get the table to align with the text's right margin. Anyone know how to do this? --Wernher 02:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] profit/turnover date

It says Revenue [up] £77.69 million GBP (1984) in the table, and yet the company is still alive. What is the point of listing a 1984 figure and trend? Is it the maximum profit they've made? --BACbKA 19:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I've changed it to £102 million, the 1985 revenue - the highest revenue the company has ever made. Its not profit, its revenue/turnover. Its a good figure to include to show how large Sinclair did get at its peak in the 80s. Since then they've made increasing losses, as shown in the table. — Wackymacs 10:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I see. I think that the infobox revenue field is used usually for displaying more current revenue figures, and I believe some folks will be puzzled (or imply right from this infobox field that the company is defunct) because the revenue here is over 10 years old, but 1) the template never says no to such practice 2) if somebody investigative enough is puzzled, this discussion at the talk page will answer their needs. Thanks for the clarification... --BACbKA 10:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure what you expect me to do - Sinclair is no longer a public company, and does not release financial figures and does not publicly trade on the London Stock Exchange. You could say the company is almost defunct really, just looking at the Sinclair website tells us Sinclair's been quiet in the past years. — Wackymacs 10:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing. If I knew a better way I would have gone ahead and changed it... --BACbKA 10:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC) The last change to the article by Cedars, eliminating the green arrow, was an excellent move fully eliminating the problem for the any possibly confused future readers remaining. Now one really feels it is a static datum, not a live one. --BACbKA 17:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A couple of suggestions

I'm a bit concerned about this article's current designation as a good article - there's a couple of things I think really need sorting out if it's to remain listed. First, 'facts and trivia' should be mentioned in the article anyway if they are actually notable. Putting them in their own section implies that they're not actually of great interest. Second, the list of cancelled projects would be much improved if it was made into prose. Otherwise it's fine. Worldtraveller 20:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)