Talk:Hi-Tek Corporation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by 97198 (talk) 04:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-Tek Series 725 switch
Hi-Tek Series 725 switch

Created by DigitalIceAge (talk). Self-nominated at 06:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Article was created on time and meets DYK requirements for sourcing, plagiarism, and length. A QPQ has been done. Both hooks are cited inline, but I could only find access the Parachute History source for ALT1 as the other sources are either inaccessible to me or paywalled. Both hooks are interesting, so I'll leave the final hook choice to the promoter; my only suggestion is to link to both timing devices and ripcord in ALT1 if it is promoted. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Year of founding[edit]

Where was the year of founding (1967) obtained? The two references do not seem to corroborate the year. It seems plausible, because if NMB TECHNOLOGIES (USA) INC. (C0522946) is the same company (which would loosely fit information from MinebeaMitsumi), then the year of founding would match.

Interesting to see how much you’ve found about Hi-Tek themselves — a lot more than I ever achieved!

Ghiraddje (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books makes it very difficult with their irritating snippet view, but you can just about eek out the founding date by searching "Hallerberg" "Hi-Tek" and "established"/"est". I found a better directory listing that squarely shows the whole company's details including the founding date in the snippet.
And thanks! I've ran into a handful of Hi-Tek keyboards of various vintages, but didn't really give the company much thought until I realized that their old HQ were within walking distance of me. DigitalIceAge (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you’ve been fighting snippets too … I understand their necessity for copyright reasons, but that does not excuse the buggy behaviour. What is more egregious, however, is scanning volumes or half-volumes at a time and failing to identify which issue a result is from. This complicates the process of getting material scanned in at libraries.
I’ll have another dig later. I would prefer not to reference Wikipedia as you’ve already referenced my site and that is awkwardly circular! (Not that my site is a good reference candidate as it’s only my notes and they are prone to changing as I correct mistakes.)
Funny, as Cherry’s former UK sites (except Dunstable) are within easy walking distance of where I live.
Ghiraddje (talk) 11:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I take it you're (Redacted). You're site is great, and I've uploaded all the public domain photographs you've taken (and many more) from Deskthority to Commons.
Since you've had a WP account for a while you might be eligible for the Wikipedia Library, which provides access to Gale and ProQuest for free. I rely on them constantly for writing articles on old computer stuff, although the cutoff date for abstract/full-text coverage seems to start around 1980...
I know exactly the binded volume problem you're describing; it's a PITA when writing citations. I really hope Google inks a deal with these publishers in the not-too-distant future so they can release these old journals for free. I've come across stacks of old electronics magazines at the flea market thinking I've come across some long-lost publication, only to find Google scanned it years ago and locked it behind snippet view. I don't want to have to wait til I'm decrepit before they enter the PD. DigitalIceAge (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is me, although like you, I do not identify myself under my Wikipedia account. I am going to curtail any further conversation here as this is not an appropriate forum for private correspondence :)
Ghiraddje (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghiraddje: Oops! {{Redacted}} your name. I can ask to have my edit revdel'd if you want. DigitalIceAge (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It’s no big deal … not even if you left my name there. Ghiraddje (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]