Talk:CohesiveFT

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the CohesiveFT article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

[edit] Discussion

I don't understand the objection. Despite whatever claims of policy there might be - Wikipedia is now used as a business listings. Maybe the wikipedia group should create a separate site Businesspedia?

But when there is a category called this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Companies_based_in_North_Carolina

I don't understand what is wrong with CohesiveFT's listing? (I do work for CohesiveFT). See the listings by almost any of the businesses - (of note see Red Hat and rPATH). I don't see a difference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.195.247.50 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 31 October 2006.

It contains what, in my opinion, could be classed as a style not adhering to Wikipedia's neutral point of view guideline. For example, "...range of virtual appliances that are available from its web site...", and the second paragraph seems designed purely to promote the company. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the subject of the article, it's just not written in the way you would expect an encyclopaedic article to be written. Again, in my opinion. I am but one of many editors who express opinions like this to try to aid the article's integration into Wikipedia by making sure it contains the facts - with no embellishment or promotion. It must also cite reliable independent sources (not just the company's own website) for various reasons: verifiability and notability being but two. It is interesting to say the least that you view Wikipedia as a business listings site and I agree it is fast becoming what it should not be. Unfortunately, because Wikipedia is entirely free, the editors work for free and there's not as many as there could be to check all new pages which are created for style and, for want of a better word, spam. Your article is far from spam, I might add. At the end of the day, either work on the article and remove the tag; or just remove the tag. I would prefer the former, but I am not in a position to do much else. And thankyou for the leads on the other two articles, I will be checking them shortly for non-NPoV styling! Good luck. Bubba hotep 22:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Red Hat, as far as I can see, states fact and has a huge reference section to back up the article's statements. RPath, on the other hand, has many things wrong with it, in my opinion, but I have put a tag on it for not citing references. This I intend to be my only input into the article. Cheers. Bubba hotep 23:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This discussion continues here: Bubba hotep's talk page. Thanks, Monadic.

Thanks very much for that. My goal is to provide factual information about the company as opposed to biased marketing material and I appreciate your assistance in refining the language of the entry. Please can I just clarify a couple of things: first I am not the same person who added comments to the talk page, that was a colleague. Second, we definitely do not view Wikipedia as a business listings site; our view is that it is not surprising if a site that is encyclopaedic starts to include facts about companies, and that given that facts about companies are frequently changing, it might make sense for them to be in a separate 'opedia. In fact someone has tried to set up such a thing but it has shortcomings compared to Wikipedia (see for example: Microsoft's entry). This may strike you as surprising but I regard the information that I provided as both entirely factual and independently verifiable. Nonetheless I shall try to refactor this using the Red Hat entry as a palimpsest. Cheers, Monadic.

[edit] Why I kept this on the watchlist

Proves my point. If you put a tag on it, it either gets deleted or improved beyond recognition. Superb now, I must say. Although I still have a problem with Wikipedia business listings – which I alone cannot remedy, so I may as well have a little bit of input – I am gracious enough to admit a job well done. Bubba hotep 00:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank-you very much :-) // Monadic

[edit] Notability

I would like to see more references on this article which prove that the subject is notable, per WP:CORP. All of the references that it has now, seem to be to primary sources. Why exactly is this company deemed famous enough to be encyclopedic? --Elonka 20:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, Elonka. I have checked WP:CORP and still do not understand your objection. Perhaps I do not understand what you mean by primary sources. Please can you elaborate. Many thanks -- Monadic.