Jump to content

Talk:Litigation involving Apple Inc.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleLitigation involving Apple Inc. was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 14, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
July 26, 2012Good article nomineeListed
November 13, 2019Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Community reassessment

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result: Delist Update tag still present and relavent AIRcorn (talk) 04:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Template:update maintenance tag puts into question the stability of the article (GA criterion 5)?. —Nemoschool (talk) 09:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment — I don't think the article has a stability problem. The stability criteria means that the article should not be subject to constant changes due to edit warring or content disputes. I think the maintenance tag on the page goes more to broadness and whether the article addresses the main aspects of the subject. I don't know enough about Apple litigation to know for sure. I will say that there is a subsection about litigation that occurred after the maintenance tag was added. The article could also use some clean-up with its citations, including bare urls and inconsistent styles for the date. Knope7 (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The tag says that the article has needed to be updated (true) since 2014: 2 years after it passed GA nomination and 6 years ago, respectively, which is a criteria 3 issue. During this reassessment process, someone or some people should take up the mantle. Otherwise, it must be demoted. ⌚️ (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References not consecutive

[edit]

After new section entitled Cancellation of “Apple Music” trademark application was added, references are no longer consecutive and must be renumbered in this new section as follows: 2 must become 86, September 17, 2016 Office Action Outgoing must become 87, 3 to 88, 4 to 89, 5 to 90, 6 to 91. Thereafter, all subsequent references must be renumbered, i.e. 86 must become 92 et. seq. Contributor does not know how to do this and no template seems to be available. Contribute14 (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The refs were added as inline links, and thus did not take advantage of WP's auto-numbering for refs. I have contained them in refs to fix that. Masem (t) 17:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Current shareholders law suit

[edit]

The settlement was reached recently some $490M! what is the proposed benefit to shareholders? 2600:8800:9D80:4E:E4E3:BDEB:FE19:DD48 (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]