Talk:Beam Software

message: :Image:Melbournehlogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Melbournehlogo.png

message: This article claims that the software publisher wasn't named Melbourne House until 2000, however they published under the Melbourne House name throughout the 1980s, so clearly this article is highly suspect in its accuracy. For example, here is a link to a very popular game they published in the mid 80s under the Melbourne House brand:
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c0/Explodingfist.jpg&imgrefurl=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Way_of_the_Exploding_Fist&h=388&w=244&tbnid=8Ub7QEcbP0dzWM:&tbnh=186&tbnw=116&usg=__y6KZJZWHnqlPyWcpp24vLY4gNv8%3D&vet=10ahUKEwiRm83d1YfaAhVtoFkKHZi3BNAQ_B0IvAEwDA..i&docid=JvtYYeeSnXIFeM&itg=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiRm83d1YfaAhVtoFkKHZi3BNAQ_B0IvAEwDA
removed, until reliable sources are found: Beam Software is one of the longest surviving game development companies in the world and for most of its existence has been the largest game development studio in Australia.  -- Make (talk) 01:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: sentence had been reintroduced to the article. Without a proper reference this is suitable for an advertisement or some PR-speak, but not a Wikipedia article, sorry. Please note that removing unreferenced claims is backed by Wikipedia policies and repeatedly adding such claims is a degradation of the article's quality. -- Make (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims w/o references 

message: We have this:
Krome Studios Melbourne, formerly Beam Software, is a video game development studio founded in 1980 and based in Melbourne, Australia. The studio operated independently until 1999, when it was acquired by Infogrames, who changed the name to Melbourne House. In 2006 the studio was sold to Krome Studios.
The name Beam was a contraction of the initials of the founders:  Alfred Milgrom and Naomi Besen.
And this:
	
Krome Studios Melbourne, is an Australian developer based in Melbourne, Australia. It was founded 1980 as Beam Software before 1999 when it was acquired by Infogrames, who changed the name to Melbourne House. In 2006 the studio was sold to Krome Studios and again renamed. The name Beam was a contraction of the initials of the founders:  Alfred Milgrom and Naomi Besen. 
My issues with the second one:
"It was founded 1980" - needs the word "in".
" as Beam Software before 1999 when it was acquired by Infogrames" - what is "before" 1999? This just doesn't make sense. You are correct, 1980 is before 1999, but I'm sure that doesn't have to be stated.
The first version is much better worded.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sequal1 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence 

message: The history part of the article had sections "Home computer era", "Shift to consoles and PCs" and "Infogrames and Krome". These titles corresponded to specific stages in the studio's history. I don't see any advantage in using a generic structure by decades. Honestly, I don't really care for what happend to the studio after the acquisition by Infogrames, so it's OK with me to name that section "2000's". However making a split in 1987 and naming the sections after the platforms Beam developed for, is backed by : ... As a result, Beam Software started developing for Nintendo platforms. The propriety nature of NES and console games radically changed the global gaming industry. This in conjunction with the sale of Melbourne House to Mastertronic in 1987 was the catalyst for major changes at Beam Software. ...  -- Make (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  section names 

message: * World of Spectrum is a Database mainly for Spectrum Software. Since neither Krome nor Melbourne have developed for that platform it's inappropriate to name that Weblink anything but Beam Software.
*  Studio homepage. The Studio does not have a homepage anymore. Why provide a link to the main Krome website? One might search archive.org if they have any historical homepage, either for Beam or Melbourne House.
-- Make (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I consider removing the logo and the weblink from the infobox. Both are not specific for the studio. Any objections? -- Make (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: None it seems. 10 days notice should be enough. Sequal1 (talk) 10:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: as is, the article covers 
* a company, Beam Software, that ceased existence in 1999
* a development studio, that operated as an independent company, than was part of Infogrames and Krome
this is slightly confusing - but so is reality ;-) What I would like to do is focus on the historical entity. As a division of other companies - "Infogrames Melbourne House, a studio of Infogrames" and "Krome Studios Melbourne, a studio of Krome Studios"  I can't see independent notability. Sure, the fate should be mentioned in the article, but as it is now, this has a smell of "rewriting history" (crediting Krome Studios with titles that were created at a time when Krome didn't exist.) 
I'm aware, these changes might face opposition, so I am in no hurry and prepared to discuss things beforehand and open to reasonable suggestions. -- Make (talk) 10:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally understand where you are coming from with these changes, but I don't like the way you've done it. I 100% agree that we should explain what happened, but I think that you've gone about it the wrong way. I'm not sure how we should do it though. Sequal1 (talk) 10:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just re-read the article and you're right, the only mention of Krome is the takeover, which is the last thing mentioned. I think we should expand this article to include things Krome Melbourne have done and then format it something like Psygnosis. Sequal1 (talk) 10:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's interesting that you bring up Psygnosis - that article shows some similarities: In both cases the current titles are somehow ignorant to legacy and heritage. What is the connection between Shadow of the Beast and SCE Studio Liverpool or Way of the Exploding Fist and Krome Studios Melbourne? --  I have to think this over. Maybe in both cases it would help to split the articles: One each for the historical entity that ceased existence and one each for the current operation as a division of a big corporation. -- For me, there is no need to hurry.  And ma time for Wikipedia is limited, unfortunately. - For the time being, I will leave this article's structure and title as is. -- A new article Melbourne House (publisher) for Beam's UK-based publisher might be a good idea. I think I'll tackle that first and see how things develop. Make (talk) 11:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  dual nature of the article 

message: Employee 2 or 3, but not important important to mention, eh?  Shenme (talk) 04:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting non-mention of the woman 

message: Given that Krome Studios Melbourne no longer exists, and Beam Software and all of its child companies are no longer operating, should this article be reverted to 'Beam Software' (being the most historically notable period of the company's existance)?
JustinH (talk) 04:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert article to 'Beam Software' 

message: "The studio operated independently from 1988 until 2000, when it was acquired by Infogrames, who changed the name to Melbourne House". But they were called Melbourne House long before that, e.g. when producing ZX Spectrum programs throughout the 1980s. 109.154.114.252 (talk) 12:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Krome Studios Melbourne. 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/20100611011748/http://www.acmi.net.au/hits_80s_timeline.htm to http://www.acmi.net.au/hits_80s_timeline.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) 14:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified