Talk:SpartaDOS X

www.spartados.com and www.spartadosx.com

I reverted a change by 212.87.13.74 (talk · contribs) to add the web sites www.spartados.com and www.spartadosx.com to the article. Both web sites redirect to the web site already in the article, sdx.atari8.info. I have left a note on the IP's talk page asking him/her to discuss here if they really want those two (duplicative) URL's in the article. Dead Horsey (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The label says "official website". All three addresses are "official". Please stop removing them, because it starts to look like an obsession. -95.49.1.236 (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an obsession; note that by making such assumption you seem to not follow the "fundamental principle on Wikipedia". Now on topic: The three addresses have no value to a Wikipedia reader searching for an official website, because they all point to the same website - for this purpose one URL is enough. Presence of three addresses only adds confusion, by leading the reader to think that the DOS has three official websites, which (s)he only discovers as untrue only after clicking the links. This is a usability issue, which can be avoided (without any negative effects) by removing the two addresses. Therefore, please tell us why addition of two more URLs is so beneficial to Wikipedia that it warrants existence of those usability issues. Additionally - how do we know if the two addresses are official, and not redirects set up by a third party? There's no confirmation of this fact on the project's website. --Krótki (talk) 07:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) You, as wikipedia editor, are not supposed to create or correct reality, you're supposed to report and describe it; 2) you are not authorized to decide which of the three existing addresses are valid or not, as you're not the owner of the website nor you have anything to do with the project involved; 3) you're not authorized to decide, what is "enough" or not for the owners of the website, as you are not knowledgeable on the website's future and its development; 4) if you require "confirmation", lookup the website again now; 5) I am reverting the changes now. -212.87.13.69 (talk) 02:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) Of course, we all are. However we constantly have to decide what is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Why the fact that a website has 3 addresses, is notable enough? The addresses are already listed on that website, there's no need to include them here as well, in part due to the usability issue mentioned earlier. 2 and 3) Wikipedia's goal isnt to cater for any website owners' particular needs, mind you. Now, from the tone of your responses I'm assuming you are one of the website owners, is that right? 4) Thank you. 5) That's rather unfortunate - since your change turned out disputable, you should refrain from restoring it until the discussion is resolved. Note that I've made the previous revert only after waiting a while for your answer. I guess I'm going to wait longer the next time.

Now I'd like you to address the usability issue as well, since it was actually the most important part in my previous response. Please understand, it's not something I've taken out of thin air - the issue was apparently discussed so much that it got it's own entry in the guideline (see "Minimize number of links"). --Krótki (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing, the whole "SpartaDOS X Upgrade Project" is, AFAIK, based on unauthorised disassembly of a legacy software, development of which was not officially transferred from ICD, FTe or any of its successors. So, the web page should not IMHO be considered as the official SDX page, and therefore the link should not be placed in the infobox with the "Official website" caption. The "external links" section at the bottom of the article - sure, no problem, but it seems the page is no more official than any Atari fan site. --Krótki (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stating that the project is "based on unauthorised disassembly of a legacy software, development of which was not officially transferred from ICD, FTe or any of its successors", you're doing a WP:OR. As a private enterprise (and entity), the holders have no reason to either deny or confirm to you (or anyone), that the rights were not transferred. There are only 3 persons in the world (two in Poland, one in the USA), who know this, and there is no reason to disclose anything. So I dimiss your statement as being not an argument.

Second, deleting the address from the "Official website", while not knowing anything about its (the website's) real status, nor being able to point any "better official website", you're simply doing damage to the wikipedia's content and deprive any potential reader of an important part of its valuable content (namely: the address fo the website). Therefore I am restoring the URLs now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.87.13.69 (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me restate my argument then, in different words: There is no reliable source that states whether the "SDX Upgrade Project" is an official continuation of SDX development. Until such source is found, we may not treat SDX Upgrade Project as such, which is why the links should be removed from the infobox. (Note that I'm not depriving anyone of anything - the link to SDX Upgrade Project remains available in the "References" section.)

I'm asking you to stop reintroducing the SDX Upgrade Project links into the infobox until this discussion is resolved. Despite my previous notice, you're still ignoring WP:BRD and WP:ELOFFICIAL, in addition to ignoring the questions asked in my previous message, and accusing me of vandalism in the summary of your last edit. I'm asking you to refrain from such behaviour immediately, as it is really unwelcome here. --Krótki (talk) 22:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Krótki. The article's title is "SpartaDOS X,' not "SDX Upgrade Project." The SDX Upgrade Project absolutely does belong in this article, as it is relevant to SpartaDOS X, but the article is still about SpartaDOS X, not the SDX Upgrade Project. Without any evidence that the SDX Upgrade Project is an official continuation of SpartaDOS X, the two are separate, and so an official website for the SDX Upgrade Project cannot be listed in the SpartaDOS X article as an official website for SpartaDOS X. The anon IP claimed above that there are only 3 people in the world (2 in Poland and 1 in the US) who have this information, and that's a WP:V failure right there. Dead Horsey (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with both statements. There is the one and only official website for the SpartaDOS X, and that's the one in question. Once you can find anything better, you can replace the link, otherwise you're simply denying a mere fact. Denying a mere fact, you're depriving YOUR (not SDX's) users valuable information, and removing such an information os an obvious vandalism. Of course, it is your freedom to deny facts, or do vandalism to your own website, but that's actually what makes Wikipedia rumours. So long. -212.87.13.78 (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My, aren't we angry? Here's what you need to do. Create the page [SpartaDOS X Upgrade Project]. Make sure it passes WP:V when you claim that it is an official continuation of SpartaDOS X; you'll need some kind of source other than "only 3 people in the world know this, and it's none of your business." Make sure you're also not violating WP:COI, which sounds a little tenuous, since you seem to be very closely affiliated with the website. Finally, link from the SpartaDOS X article to the separate page for the SpartaDOS X Upgrade Project. Dead Horsey (talk) 03:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]