User talk:Robert.harker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm a big fan of keeping discussions on one page, so unless otherwise noted, I'll reply here to anything started here. Similarly, if I've started a discussion elsewhere, I'd prefer to keep it there.

Contents

[edit] Speedy deletion of Imagen Inc

A tag has been placed on Imagen Inc requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you.

[edit] SUN-3M

Hi, replied to your comment here.--NapoliRoma (talk) 23:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC) ...and again...--NapoliRoma (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Xylogics

No, I'm sorry I didn't. There's a substantial backlog at C:CSD. I got to the article, as it was linking to CSD through the hang-on tags. I checked the history and noted there was no accompanying (prior) request for deletion. This makes the hang-on tag invalid as no editor has requested deletion. I therefore removed the tags in order to remove it from the queue at CSD. I'm afraid this wasn't about article clean up but managing the job load at another part of Wikipedia. Again, sorry, but I hope that explains my actions. Pedro :  Chat  10:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Soundcraft colour.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Soundcraft colour.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Splitting historic Universal Audio/UREI from new Universal Audio/Kind Of Loud Technologies

I like what you've been doing in adding a lot of great pro audio material to Wikipedia. That said, I wonder what was the intention in splitting Bill Putnam's old UA/UREI from the new company formed by Putnam's sons? Certainly, the new company is different than the old in terms of industry position as a boutique operation rather than as a major player. It's also true there was a large time gap between the two entities where neither was in business. However, the new guys are claiming to be descended from the old company and they are manufacturing (among other things) reproductions of the most famous historic products. That last reason is why I presented both entities on the same page. Binksternet (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I split them out because the original page put a lot of emphasis on the new company which in my opinion is a little start-up and not legend that the original company was. In the late 70/early 80s you could walk into any professional recording studio and you would see many UREI products, speakers, compressors, EQs, etc. If you looked at a medium to large sound reinforcement company you would be likely to see UREI compressors and EQs.
The new company is as you say, a boutique operation. They are recycling old designs and while they offer new products it is unlikely that they will offer any ground breaking products like the LA-3, LA-4 compressors, 813 monitors, or the 537, 539 graphic EQs. The professional market is different these days.
So I think the two pages are about very different companies. The original company with a historic significance and the new company which is an on-going business. I would also like to split out the Chicago and west coast recording studios since I think that they are separate with their own histories. But that is for another day.
Robert.harker (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. It was a jolt to see the page split without discussion. I'll take another look and see if there are further tweaks to be made along the lines you've established. One possibility that comes to mind is to make Universal Audio into a disambiguation page which directs the reader to Universal Audio (album), Universal Audio (company) and Universal Audio (defunct company) or UREI or some such. That, or give the new guys the straight-up Universal Audio link while making the old company be UREI. There are a bunch of options.
I don't want to lose the high-level view where a single article gives the reader an idea of all the wild stuff Bill Putnam was up to. I guess that means copying some material from these various articles and inserting it at the Bill Putnam page. Or at least linking properly. Binksternet (talk) 00:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I looked at creating a disambiguation page but could not find good examples of the wiki syntax to use. Yes it is the right thing to do. A top level Universal Audio page would be nice, but keep it short and sweet. A paragraph for each phase with links to that phase.

Robert.harker (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Yamaha Pro Audio

A tag has been placed on Yamaha Pro Audio requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. PseudoChron (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)