Talk:Abebooks
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For a September 2005 deletion debate about this article see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abebooks
I am the holder of copyright for this page and am the one who published it. Can please have it removed from the Copyright infringement section and posted live? I can be contacted at drideout@abebooks.com
[edit] Style
Whilst the author has kindly consented to release their text under the GFDL, I'd like to gently remind them that dumps of websites onto the Wikipedia are generally in need of severe cleaning. As it stands, this article is written in "our" and "we", includes various decorative language, and duplicate information. I've fixed some, but much work is needed. -Splash 22:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Please see updates to page -Rideout
- I'm not happy with the tone of the article. It still reads too much like advertising, and not enough like an encylopaedic entry. There aren't any specific passages that I can put my finger on, or I'd edit them. However, the overall tone is one of an advertising piece shoehorned into Wikipedia. I'd probably even go so far as to say that this old stub is a better encylopaedia entry than the current version. If anyone can improve the style of the piece further, then I think it would be a great improvement. If not, I may revert to the old version some time over the next day or two. KeithD (talk) 07:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Finding myself agreeing with you, I attempted to perform a marketingectomy on the history section. I'm still not happy with the quality though. Going back to the stub may be the best solution, unless somebody can do a better job of re-writing it. --GraemeL (talk) 12:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Nice rewrite. You've vastly improved the tone of the article. (I have to say I'm rather disappointed that Abebooks have apparently tried to use this and other Wikipedia articles as a way in which to promote their website. They've gone down in my estimation because of it). KeithD (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, that is very disappointing. Wikipedia is not free advertising space. I have removed all but one of their link insertions, and redirected Advanced Book Exchange to here. The link insertions were simply not encyclopedic in the articles they appeared in (and I removed other links at the same time), and they seem to have embarked on a free advertising campaign here, or to have misunderstood what Wikipedia is. In any case, at least this article is looking better now. -Splash 14:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Nice rewrite. You've vastly improved the tone of the article. (I have to say I'm rather disappointed that Abebooks have apparently tried to use this and other Wikipedia articles as a way in which to promote their website. They've gone down in my estimation because of it). KeithD (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Finding myself agreeing with you, I attempted to perform a marketingectomy on the history section. I'm still not happy with the quality though. Going back to the stub may be the best solution, unless somebody can do a better job of re-writing it. --GraemeL (talk) 12:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
