Talk:Xilinx
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
Why does the first paragraph sounds like something Xilinx would write about themselves? edit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yoodaba https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xilinx&diff=prev&oldid=955427578 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yoodaba#Copyright_violation_in_Kronos_Incorporated
It looks like this article lacks in an encyclopaedic tone because of a sock-puppet of Yoodaba (Shlop0s). This user clearly puts a positive spin on Wikipedia articles about companies, and was probably hired to do it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dealpath&diff=972519454&oldid=959921677
I hate to see this sort of bias. Talib1101 (talk) 08:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed. This article has been edited by the Yoodaba UPE sockfarm, both with registered accounts and also while logged out with proxies. MarioGom (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, this is (basically?) confirmed as a sock puppet. Does anyone willing to propose an update to the article or what’s the move here? Or will the CU’s revert the changes? Announcement (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Lead too short edit
The lead says nothing of the actual products that Xilinx produced or its success on the market. This contributes to the idea that its buyout from AMD made it significant, ie makes the lead biased as well. Nxavar (talk) 08:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Lead: Xilinx as a company and brand still exists under AMD edit
Wouldn't it be more accurate for the lead to say that Xilinx is a wholly owned subsidiary of AMD rather than that it 'was' a company? The SEC filings cited in the article and various releases from AMD indicate that Xilinx will continue to survive as a wholly owned company, having its own tax filings and product lines etc. post-merger. As far as I can tell, the brand also hasn't been retired by AMD and for the time being, at least some products are still retaining the branding. If there are no objections to this in the next few days, I'll correct this on the article. Combustible Vulpex (talk) 07:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)