Talk:Sinclair Research

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Merge proposal
As pointed out in the GA Reassessment, the section here on Sinclair Radionics probably should really be in the article about that company, with only a brief mention given here, as a background to the formation of Sinclair Research Ltd. Letdorf (talk) 13:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC).


 * I've now merged the Radionics material into that article, and left a brief summary of Sinclair Research pre-history. I've also corrected the apparent assumption that Sinclair Research was directly descended from Radionics; AIUI the two companies were quite separate entities (Radionics continued on its own path after Sir Clive resigned, and is now Thurlby-Thandar Instruments). Letdorf (talk) 11:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC).

The logo(s) of the two companies
After studying the two articles Sinclair Research and Sinclair Radionics for a few minutes, I can see how they deserve separate articles. However, the logo File:Sinclair.gif is being used in both articles, claiming both companies used the logo. Here in the US, this would never happen, since the whole point of a trademarked logo is to distinguish one company from another. Can anyone verify that the two companies both used the same logo? &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * E.g. http://oldwww.nvg.ntnu.no/sinclair/audio/gallery/system4000_ad.jpg --Frodet (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, as Frodet has demonstrated, an inspection of relevant products or advertising material will confirm that the very same logo was used by Radionics and Research (and Amstrad after 1986). Letdorf (talk) 13:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC).


 * I think it's bizarre. But I bought Frodet's point when I saw it.  That's what an encyclopedia is for...learning stuff.  &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 15:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sinclair Research. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060924102231/http://www.sincuser.f9.co.uk/050/news.htm to http://www.sincuser.f9.co.uk/050/news.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151003092254/http://www.sinclairzx.com/spec-x-1.html to http://www.sinclairzx.com/spec-x-1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sinclair Research. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020301025415/http://www.sincuser.f9.co.uk/045/sstory.htm to http://www.sincuser.f9.co.uk/045/sstory.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)