Talk:GeoEye

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Notability

Before Calton slimes this article again, let me note that GeoEye is the biggest commercial space imaging firm. If Spot, and DigitalGlobe warrant articles, then so does this company. The fact that they are an Orbital Sciences spinoff alone makes them important. And I don't get the bogus {{references}} tag...it is a stub with two links that substantiate everything it contains. The only reason it's a stub now is because someone foolishly deleted the article's previous incarnation due to CopyVio. (There was prior content that was not CopyVio...and simply reverting would have sufficed.) I now have to rebuild the article and it doesn't help to have people like Calton mass-tagging articles the instant they show up. What is the point of slapping notability/references tags on articles within hours of creation? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 01:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

What is the point of slapping notability/references tags on articles within hours of creation? It's called "housekeeping".
Free clue for the paranoid: "Because I said so" does not meet Wikipedia policy and standards for notability, reliable sources, or references. Try again, and stow the paranoia while you're at it. --Calton | Talk 02:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I think your tags are superfluous. Where does the "references" tag come from? And what about the part about this being the biggest company in an industry for which Wikipedia has several other articles? You didn't even begin to address the substance of what I was stating. Pony up, buddy. Looking at your recent edits, it looks like you're one of these busybodies who does nothing but place these tags on articles. Why are you tagging a new article before it's done? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 04:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Looking at your recent edits, it looks like you're one of these busybodies who does nothing but place these tags on articles.
Reading: not your strong suit. What do I do? Clean-up duty, mopping up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical. Can't imagine why you'd have a problem with that.
In any case, which parts of "multiple, non-trivial third-party media coverage" (as noted in the edit summary) are giving you difficulty? Hint: the labels "Official site" and "press release" should tell you why they don't qualify. Again, for your convenience, from above:
This is policy. If you prefer to throw a conniption fit, that's fine, but it's not going to get you far. --Calton | Talk 04:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Policy schmolicy. It's part of the same silly effort that the same tags slapped on Hughes Helicopters. Cavedwellers! —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 12:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, here is some third-party media coverage of GeoEye:

There’s plenty more on Google News. GeoEye has my full vote for notability. (Insert “Yo mama so fat…” joke here to maintain tone of discussion.) —Fleminra 00:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/e/o/Talk%7EGeoEye_e02c.html"