Dear Wiki Fans and Members,
while browsing the latest changes in the CPC wiki, I came across this disgrace: http://www.cpcwiki.eu/index.php/Faulty_Undenying_Abbreviations and couldn't believe what I saw. Ignoring the terrible english and the fact that the information is completely false, i have to ask myself, is this what the wiki is coming to? This has absolutely nothing to do with the CPC whatsoever and makes a mockery of the otherwise well documented and comprehensive information offered in the Wiki. Has it come so far, that the wiki needs to be moderated to avoid this kind of junk that belongs at best in a second-rate blog, but has no place in a wiki of the standard that CPC wiki readers have come to expect. It would be very sad if the CPC wiki goes the way other sites have gone. Please don't let the wiki go there.
Regards,
A Concerned Wiki Fan.
Hi 'Fan' ;)
I first thought "hey what's this" when I saw your thread.
Then I read the wiki-page which you described here and totally agree with you.
This page is, together with this page: http://cpcwiki.eu/index.php/Triumph (http://cpcwiki.eu/index.php/Triumph) totally un-useful.
We already discussed about "probably existing things" here: http://cpcwiki.eu/forum/index.php/topic,545.0.html
There are people who shine with superficial knowledge. :(
I just added a poll about sites like these:
http://cpcwiki.eu/forum/index.php/topic,709.0.html
There are many sites which need to be changed...
e.g. http://cpcwiki.eu/index.php/Isp
Erm... first of all, I don't get why you feel compelled to write anonymously! It's a perfectly valid opinion and I can't see why posting under your real name would be bad or inconvenient or whatever!
On the other hand, you
are being quite a bit melodramatic! Yes, it's two irrelevant, out of topic and out of hand articles, so we 'll delete them. Going from that to the End of the World As We Know It (including CPCWiki) it quite a stretch.
Quotes this what the wiki is coming to?
Yes it is, but not in the way you mean it. This is what the wiki is coming to, as a growing collective, with more and more people contributing stuff. There are hundreds of edits and changes being done every day and the number of articles is ever-rising, so it's only natural that you'll get some garbage thrown in as well. But, come on, nobody died, let's all smile and move forward. What's more, http://www.cpcwiki.eu/index.php/Faulty_Undenying_Abbreviations was meant, as far as I can see, as an in-joke, and no seriousness was pretended.
I think there are a lot of people who are passionate about the cpc, wiki and forum.
We all want a site to visit and to talk about cpc, to share information and to help others.
We all want to see new games, read about some new info.
So here it depends on what form the wiki should take. What is best for new or old to read and to keep them comming back and to get them interested in cpc.
Some people want the wiki to be more serious ... others want it to be fun too.
Well....
@ Kevin:
You are right here.
But: shouldn't a wiki be as serious as possible?
We could post our nonsense here in forum!
Also funny "Talk:" sites in the wiki are good.
But pages with informations should be serious and clear understandable for everyone.
When I see a wonderbra in a CPC-related site, I first think:
WTF???
Also, in the page is nothing which writes "we collected some funny materials while searching for triumph products"
My opinion: When "foreign" people see pages like these, it's no wonder that they point with their fingers on the CPCwiki and laugh about it. (And that's not meant positive)
Perhaps also a funny site about "Outtakes" in the wiki would be cool, where we collect "stupid things" about the CPC ;)
But the user would clearly see, this page is meant to be funny.
I don't think that the wiki should be 'as serious as possible'. But this doesn't mean it should be silly, either. You can adhere to facts and write informative articles (I assume that's what you meant by 'serious') and still not be pretentious. Truth *can* afford some fun.
You are totally right about the Talk pages, and the outtakes idea is a fantastic one :D
Indeed, I'm of the idea that the two pages should be discussed, so I deleted the abbreviations one.
Hi there!
Ok, let's go the golden middle way. Pages can be serious or not, but unserious pages should be branded / marked as funny or unserious. Not all people share the same background or knowledge. .... IMHO
Ah, here you are talking about the Triumph page, too. I've originally posted it as a side note in the http://cpcwiki.eu/forum/index.php/topic,678.msg8061.html#msg8061 thread, and discussed the deletion of that article in http://cpcwiki.eu/forum/index.php/topic,678.msg8122.html#msg8122.
Golden middle sounds good. Wouldn't be too happy needing to have it branded "unserious" or "funny" though. Of course, there's some fun in the arrangement. But it'd pretty much spoil the joke when adding a big message saying "THIS IS FUNNY! HA AH HA".
And most of it is serious in so far as it refers to existing companies. The more unlikely ones are already branded as "unlikely" or "doubtworthy", wouldn't that do it, too? Most of the text and pictures in the article are concentrating on the typewriter/computer manufacturer - which should be the most likely one that amstrad had in mind - unless somebody knows more Triumph company(ies) related to electronics?
Damn, after initially deleting the Triumph page, markus now somehow got me into writing MORE about the different brands, how could that happen? Just started that project here http://cpcwiki.eu/index.php/LK-selectable_Brand_Names will be still some work to squeeze a summary with the most important details on each brandname into one page. Help on writing it would be welcome!
And help on unclear things, too! For Isp, all I could find was the ISP KG (the european ORION distributor, from 1975 until today). Since amstrad included Orion in the BIOS, it isn't too unlikely that they also had the ISP KG in mind. Or does somebody have more info or better theories? With Orion it's quite clear that they meant ORION - only problem is that there are TWO nearly identical ORIONs with same logos and similar product range, but without linking their webpages together - the people at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Orion_Electronics are pretty confused about it, too.
Cu, Martin
Regarding the different Triumph companies, I think the Cars, Motorcycles and Bicycles Triumph was all the one company and not different ones with the same name. But I could be wrong.
Bryce.
Quote from: nocash on 00:26, 27 April 10
And help on unclear things, too! For Isp, all I could find was the ISP KG (the european ORION distributor, from 1975 until today). Since amstrad included Orion in the BIOS, it isn't too unlikely that they also had the ISP KG in mind. Or does somebody have more info or better theories? With Orion it's quite clear that they meant ORION - only problem is that there are TWO nearly identical ORIONs with same logos and similar product range, but without linking their webpages together - the people at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Orion_Electronics are pretty confused about it, too.
According to this web-page (http://history.systems.swan.ac.uk/?q=node/96), Orion is (was?) a South Korea based Japanese company that manufactured the CPC.
Yup, Triumph bicycles and motorcycles seem to have the same logo. Haven't checked ALL the motorcycle brands though (there seem to be around 5 different ones). Triumph Cars seems to be from USA, not sure if they are related to the UK Triumph automobiles. Btw. does somebody know how popular the Triumph rock band has been in UK? Judging from youtube concert videos, they have played at big festivals (not in UK, I think) back in 1983. If Triumph was another insider-joke (like Arnold), then the rock band might unexpectedly become the most likely answer :-)
Quote from: Concerned_Fan on 09:02, 26 April 10
Dear Wiki Fans and Members,
...
Regards,
A Concerned Wiki Fan.
If you look closely at the prose, it's not too difficult to guess who authored this post... ::)
> If you look closely at the prose, it's not too difficult
> to guess who authored this post... ::)
Post-orthodox american christians? ;-) No, if the message says Guest, I'll trust that it wasn't a forum member.
> According to this web-page, Orion is (was?) a South Korea
> based Japanese company that manufactured the CPC.
Whoops, they manufactured the whole CPC? Some CPCs actually have a "made in korea" sticker at the bottom, though not showing details on the company name. GX4000 has "made in japan". And, strangely, my german Schneider doesn't have any "made in" at all.
What do you mean? :o
/Ygdrazil
Quote from: redbox on 09:32, 27 April 10
If you look closely at the prose, it's not too difficult to guess who authored this post... ::)
Triumph cars is definitely an English company, though they did export an awful lot of sports cars to the US.
Bryce.
@nocash: you're still getting off-topic, please do take care of it. This is not a thread about either rock bands or motorcycle companies...
Quote from: Bryce on 08:26, 27 April 10
Regarding the different Triumph companies, I think the Cars, Motorcycles and Bicycles Triumph was all the one company and not different ones with the same name. But I could be wrong.
Maybe this will help:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_(Nürnberg)
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_Motorcycles#Geschichte
Just read wikipedia, too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_(TWN)
So who is offtopic? The motorcycle manufacturer and the typewriter/computer manufacturer were originally the same company.
Yes, so let's all discuss the finer points of their bikes' mechanics, shall we?
> Yes, so let's all discuss the finer points of their bikes' mechanics, shall we?
Not at all. Just some short words on the background of the company, like the side note on Schneider Rundfunkwerke on the Schneider page. Background info on the unused brand names is maybe not too relavant - but on the other hand, I think almost everybody who owned a CPC has wondered what those names are about - so I think they really should be mentinioned on cpcwiki.
Half-finished article summarizing the brand names is here, http://cpcwiki.eu/index.php/LK-selectable_Brand_Names. Most descriptions are (hopefully) referring to the correct companies. The Isp and Triumph sections are necessarily speculative, but they are marked as such, so it's up to the reader to decide if and which speculations are reasonable.
NB. The link to [[Arnold]] goes to the Arnold Emulator? I got sorts of trapped there (the link on the Roland page goes there, too).
Quote from: nocash on 13:05, 27 April 10
NB. The link to [[Arnold]] goes to the Arnold Emulator? I got sorts of trapped there (the link on the Roland page goes there, too).
Hmmmm indeed, there's a problem with that. This is a clear disambiguation problem, but I've never used the template so I'm not sure... I'll look into it.
As it stands, the disambiguation is between:
-Arnold as a CPC codename
-Arnold the emulator.
Quote from: Gryzor on 14:54, 27 April 10
Hmmmm indeed, there's a problem with that. This is a clear disambiguation problem, but I've never used the template so I'm not sure... I'll look into it.
As it stands, the disambiguation is between:
-Arnold as a CPC codename
-Arnold the emulator.
Well the emulator was named after the "Arnold" prototype.
But you are free to make a Arnold (emulator) page?
Does one need a template? Here it's done more simple: http://cpcwiki.eu/index.php/Vortex
Or leave it as is, but adding a link to [[Arnold (Codename)]] or so in the Arnold page would be nice. Just put "the emulator was named after the "Arnold" prototype" in there, with the link on "Arnold". The problem is somebody has locked the page, so normal people can't edit it.
NB. as far as I understand Arnold wasn't only used to name prototypes. The Amendment Service Manual page 20 (cost-down 6128 schematic) also uses "ARN4" as name of the 100pin ASIC gate array chip
Quote from: nocash on 15:55, 27 April 10
Does one need a template? Here it's done more simple: http://cpcwiki.eu/index.php/Vortex (http://cpcwiki.eu/index.php/Vortex)
Or leave it as is, but adding a link to [[Arnold (Codename)]] or so in the Arnold page would be nice. Just put "the emulator was named after the "Arnold" prototype" in there, with the link on "Arnold". The problem is somebody has locked the page, so normal people can't edit it.
NB. as far as I understand Arnold wasn't only used to name prototypes. The Amendment Service Manual page 20 (cost-down 6128 schematic) also uses "ARN4" as name of the 100pin ASIC gate array chip
good idea. Done.
But I probably did it wrong because the list of contributors is not fully correct and was not transferred over to the new "Arnold (emulator)" page.
Quote from: nocash on 13:05, 27 April 10
NB. The link to [[Arnold]] goes to the Arnold Emulator? I got sorts of trapped there (the link on the Roland page goes there, too).
We all know that Amstrad put the name "Arnold" into the rom's because the upcoming Arnold Emulator by Kevin ;)
> the list of contributors is not fully correct and was not
> transferred over to the new "Arnold (emulator)" page.
Hmmmm, yeah, the contributors are still on the old page :-/ :-)
guess the correct way to fix it would be:
undo the changes on "Arnold" page
move "Arnold" to "Arnold (Emulator)"
(if that no longer works: move it to "Arnold - Emulator" or find a way to delete "Arnold (Emulator)"
With the move-method, contributors should move too (I hope so).
And the lock hopefully moves, too. "Arnold" is still locked against editing.
The lack of knowledge here is just amusing. Let's give one hint... my mother owns a Triumph type-writer... now... ? Any ideas ;-)
Finally it's good to see what happens if people know not much and change pages then. Stop them!!!
This lack of knowledge should not happen to people writing articles - or even worse change articles.
But some people still think, that they know all - and if they don't know it, it can't exist.
Now, the solution. All the different Names of Companies in the CPC, they all have been possible candidates to sell the CPC, and they are all related to computers or type-writers.
So - I'm not sure, what exactly have you done with the Arnold page?
Of course, if you don't do a disambiguation correctly (and maybe even then) the contributions won't follow the proper topic... but that's a minor annoyance, not a problem...
Couple of things dones there. Originally attempt was create new page and copy/paste text from old page. But that lacked the contributors. New attempt was move page, which worked with contributors included. At the moment there are three pages, with some problems:
Arnold - can you remove the LOCK from this page please?
Arnold (emulator) - can you unlock and DELETE this one?
Arnold (Emulator) - this is all fine
Unlocked...
Yeah, but as it is Arnold redirects to Arnold Emulator, so the Arnold page per se is lost...
No you can edit the redirect. Works like so:
go to Arnold - problem is that this moves you to Arnold (Emulator),
but it displays Redirect from "Arnold", click there, and you can edit Arnold.
Yes: not good.
Maybe considered off topic, but it does have a kind of parallel relevance....
I personally own a 1954 Standard Vanguard... if you visit: http://www.motorbase.com/vehicle/by-id/1119/ you can see some samples pictures (I own a shiny light blue one the same as some of the sample pictures in the Gallery). You'll also note on the page the reference to the model 'Standard/Triumph Vanguard S4 OHV'.
'Standard' was a fully fledged motor company from the 1900-1960s. 'Standard' bought 'Triumph' the motor company BUT made the decision to rebrand their cars to 'Triumph' and use the 'Standard' engines etc.. inside some of the 'Triumph' cars.
Sadly, nowdays no-one remembers 'Standard', but they do remember 'Triumph'.
How does this relate? Well, 'Amstrad' could have been a 'Standard' in the MicroComputer industry...
I do however agree that 'joke' wiki pages shouldn't really exist in the formal CPC wiki as the wiki should be for a collection of facts about the specialist subject
Why not good? I'd be 99% sure that the template would internally do exactly the same thing.
Ahhhh, Markus, the page http://cpcwiki.eu/index.php?title=Arnold&redirect=no is STILL locked.
What have unlocked is http://cpcwiki.eu/index.php/Arnold_(Emulator) - which may be a problem - in case there was a good reason for lockung it (?)
And please delete http://cpcwiki.eu/index.php/Arnold_(emulator) that's the faulty page without contributors. If you prefer lowercase "emulator", you can move "Emulator" to "emulator" - but, first, somebody must delete "emulator".
> How does this relate? Well, 'Amstrad' could have been
> a 'Standard' in the MicroComputer industry...
Uh, okay, I see that the motorcycle picture leads into offtopic direction.
Ooops. I just noticed that ALL registered users have access rights to Arnold. I thought the lock would allow only 2-3 people to edit that page.
Quote from: nocash on 12:45, 28 April 10
Ooops. I just noticed that ALL registered users have access rights to Arnold. I thought the lock would allow only 2-3 people to edit that page.
Well, yes.
I unlocked it.
You can fix it and then I will re-lock it.
Edit: the "Contributors" section in each page I really dislike.
Why?
E.g. someone writes for hours a page, fills it with content, then he's listed as "Contributor" (Thats ok!)
Then, someone else edits it, adds some bullshit or changes 1-2 letters and is listed as "Contributor", too (That's not ok IMO)
I think the Contributors section is a nice invention, allowing to see who else edited it, and making it a bit less anonymous. And and the bottom of the page it isn't disturbing. Rating who put most work into it isn't possible, time or size doesn't count - somebody could spend hours on bullshit or minutes on important details.
What are you doing with the lock there? The http://cpcwiki.eu/index.php/Arnold page is STILL locked.
As far as I understand, all registered users (including me) can edit that page, even if it's locked.
Unregistered users (like guests) cannot edit any pages, even if they aren't lock.
So, the lock on "Arnold" is totally useless. At it's best it's confusing, so it be nice if you could remove it, and KEEP it removed.
I want to say to Nocash that the changes that were made to the Brand Names pages, and the way it is now organised is really good :)
Also the parts that are not confirmed (e.g. which company/brand does Triumph and Isp refer to) are much better done.
I think it is good to put in this info if it is shown as good as it is now.
Quote from: nocash on 14:29, 28 April 10
What are you doing with the lock there? The http://cpcwiki.eu/index.php/Arnold (http://cpcwiki.eu/index.php/Arnold) page is STILL locked.
Removed.
Back to topic:
To ALL wiki user who commit contents or modify them:
(sorry, loud and clear)
Stop fu**ing up other peoples dedicated work by adding useless mis-informed garbage
without even having the decency to ask the REAL contributor whether they wanted it or without
fully researching whether it's even closely correct! It's not enhancing the wiki one bit,
just adding confusion and incoherency to otherwise perfectly good articles.
> the Brand Names pages, and the way it is now organised is really good :)
Thank you!
>> page is STILL locked.
> Removed.
Thank you, too!
> Stop fu**ing up other peoples dedicated work by
> adding useless mis-informed garbage
Loud, but not clear. I guess everybody would agree there. But when did that happen? Did anybody fuck-up other peoples work?
> without even having the decency to ask the REAL contributor
What? I actually felt a bit pissed when deleted mine without asking, but when adding info one should ask, too?
Quote from: Devilmarkus on 13:21, 28 April 10
Edit: the "Contributors" section in each page I really dislike.
Why?
E.g. someone writes for hours a page, fills it with content, then he's listed as "Contributor" (Thats ok!)
Then, someone else edits it, adds some bullshit or changes 1-2 letters and is listed as "Contributor", too (That's not ok IMO)
Same for me, too. I think this is unnecessary or do you really need the "fame" to be listed there? If you want to see the contributors, you can have a look at the history list.
Quote from: Octoate on 16:05, 28 April 10
Same for me, too. I think this is unnecessary or do you really need the "fame" to be listed there? If you want to see the contributors, you can have a look at the history list.
We should also add a "hall of superficial knowledge" (Or better: a top 10)
Edit: Top 10 of course, not top 1 ;) Thanks for informing me
> need the "fame" to be listed there?
> you can have a look at the history list.
The history is great understanding the "inner workings" of the pages. I wouldn't want to miss that. But it doesn't give a good summary how many and which people edited the page. So when the contributors add-on was installed, I thought: Oh, that's a nice and useful new feature.
I wouldn't say it's a "fame" thing. Okay, sometimes it is nice to see your own name on a page, but most times it's just useful to see who else edited it. In worst case somebody could edit as many pages as possible and fix all typos to get as much "fame" as possible. Unless somebody *adds* typos to get on the list, but even then it's not a real problem - just think of it as "fame and blame" list.
The problem with the "Contributors" is, when someone has spent a lot of time and effort writing up about their emulator/demo/hardware that they spent even more time developing. Then someone changes a single comma on the page and the page displays both as equal contributors, which is obviously not the case. I can fully understand, when the originator has an issue with this.
Bryce.
Well, the feature is called "Contributors", not "Equal Contributors" without any ranking in there. Let's say I've written an article, then I notice that Zorro shows up in the contributor list. I think, who is Zorro, and what did he do there? I look at the page history, and notice that Zorro fixed a typo. Then I'll say, silly mistake, good that Zorro has fixed it.
That's correct and I see it that way too (and am pleased when someone corrects my typos), but I can still fully understand, that it can also be seen as a mis-representation of the time and work invested in the content being presented.
Bryce.
Here goes the Arnold codename article, http://cpcwiki.eu/index.php/Arnold_(Codename) (http://cpcwiki.eu/index.php/Arnold_(Codename)) I bet you will absolutely HATE it. It's full of speculations, and I really didn't knew what I was talking about when writing the section about Arnold numbers :-) the part about Arnold 4 should be correct. But as for Arnold 1-3 and Arnold 5... To me, they could mean this or that (or both this and that).
I hope somebody knows more about those numbers, and will edit the article!
EDIT: I've also seen webpages omitting the costdown CPCs and referring to the Plus as Arnold 4. So even arnold 4 isn't always meaning arnold 4 :-)
Quote from: Bryce on 22:18, 28 April 10
That's correct and I see it that way too (and am pleased when someone corrects my typos), but I can still fully understand, that it can also be seen as a mis-representation of the time and work invested in the content being presented.
Bryce.
I talked to CPCManiaco just to tell him I'll be updating his Arnor pages by updating the manuals (from simply scanned to full Ocr'ed versions), updating some images and uploading missing files (many arnor roms were still missing, and kindly provided by CPCManiaco himself fir dumping).
He wrote most of the articles and you could say that I have been doing minor edits, but I had my share of work too, and neither CPCManiaco and I are that of credit whores to fight for the contributor status. We both did some nice work in the pages and appear as contributors, so that makes us happy.
Anyway, we should be focusing on entering the most info to the wiki instead of discussing such matters.
Just to weigh in on the contribs issue - which it shouldn't be, really. The mod if NOT intended to be a precise and detailed list. It's just interesting to be able to see how many and which people have contributed to a web page. Now, if you have the intention to do a really minor edit in order to see your name up there then I feel sorry for you; but, come on, it's not an issue with our wiki. If it ever becomes one we can deal with it.
The contributors analysis on the front page is more 'scientific'. For more detailed options, there's also the history page of each page.
...and let's try to keep it civilized here, people (=Markus :D ). It's jot the "fuck"word that bothers me in that post, it's the attitude. You may be 100% correct, but let's please keep the volume down.
Quote from: Gryzor on 12:48, 29 April 10
...and let's try to keep it civilized here, people (=Markus :D ). It's jot the "fuck"word that bothers me in that post, it's the attitude. You may be 100% correct, but let's please keep the volume down.
Fu**! You are fu**ing right here ;)
Y'all dead, mofo's... or something like that.
Quote from: Gryzor on 12:54, 29 April 10
Y'all dead, mofo's... or something like that.
(http://cpc-live.com/rofl.gif)
Please stop that pictures! It makes me blind!
And me? I realized my big chance and shamelessly edited http://cpcwiki.eu/index.php/Computing_with_the_Amstrad. Living in germany, I never saw that mag for real, so I just added some of my meaningless superficial knowledge. And, now I have 25% fame :-) and on top of it: the other 3 editors have 8% less fame, har-har-har ;-) nothing serious, just kidding!
Now, what's with http://cpcwiki.eu/index.php/Arnold_(Codename) ? Where are the ten-billion people who know everything about Arnold? If there are no other official docs mentioning it: The gate array numbering idea would make most sense to me; Arnold 4-5 are quite clearly referring to the SMD chips. Then the more common homebrew numbering for 464,664,6128,costdown,plus would be all bullshit :-)