Talk:Colayer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Companies Portal
This article is within the scope of Companies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of companies. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] About Colayer Article

moved from my talk page

Thanks for your note on my talk page. It looks like you have already deleted the sub-page which I created. There might be couple of sentences which might not meet your standards. I will be happy to take out OR repharse them but for that it would be great to know which ones I have to rework. I was about to put 'hangon' statement but your speed of deletion was quick. I will be happy if you could guide my work. Thanks again ... Dhoom4 07:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see the remarks on your talk page. :) Tiggerjay 05:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
How are you doing? I had put a comment for you ysday on my talk page. Dhoom4 (talk) 07:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Can you support here please? Dhoom4 13:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you're on my to-do list for this week. I had a very busy weekend with the 4th of July celebration and my son's first birthday. You've made it onto my [User:Tiggerjay#My_helping_others_to-do_list|Helping Others] list. I should have some more edits for you soon, either directly on the sandbox page or via discussion input. :) Tiggerjay 15:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, hope you had a great week over your sons birthday Dhoom4 10:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a ton Dhoom4 05:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've just completed some updates to this for style and POV. While I did rewrite some material, I deleted even more. Unfortunately, the corporate website does not provide enough of the type of information needed to finish up this article. Here are a couple things moving forward:
  1. I will move a copy of this talk page to this talk page of the article, please reply there instead of on my talk page.
  2. Don't worry about adding the colayer logo until the page itself is appropriate for inclusion into the mainspace. It will continue to be deleted, so don't worry about that until the article is ready.
  3. There are a few things which need clarification, such as:
  1. Framework & platform appear to be used interchangeable, if there is no difference, you should stick with one. If there is a difference, you may want to clarify
  2. What is the relationship between Colayer and Metalayer, it appears as if Colayer acquired (or stole) the technology from Metalayer
  1. The Colayer platform has been deted as an article, start by placing the content here. When this article becomes notable enough, and the content of the platform substantial enough, they can be split into two separate articles WP:MERGE.
  2. The link/ref needs to be fixed as follows:
  1. There is no need for excessive self-reference, this does not making things notable. Additionally, you should reference only things which may be disputable or where someone would want to find out more information.
  2. Generally your ref should not be to the homepage/top page of a website, it should be to a specific article, page, etc.
  3. There is no need to ref to someone else doing the same thing as you. If the concept is notable enough, such as virtual conferencing, then you should reference it to a WP article.
  4. The innovation well link is dead
  5. Actually several of the links are bad or dead
That's all for now, more later... Tiggerjay 17:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
First of all many thanks for your review and suggestion. Really appreciate Tiggerjay.
  1. Framework/Platform: You are right. They both mean the same.
  2. Colayer was earlier called as Metalayer. The concept and people moved to Colayer brand from Metalayer. They have the same founder & people though.
  3. You are suggesting to add "Colayer Platform" contents into one page for now: ok will do that, makes sense.
  4. Will correct/fix the links.
Thanks once again for your continued support. Dhoom4 08:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Tiggerjay, I have reworked further the article based on your above suggestion. Please do have a look and advice further. Most appreciated. Dhoom4 06:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, it is beginning to look at lot better, although I haven't reviewed the new section thoroughly yet. A few things stand out, actually it is all about links.
  1. Review Wikipedia:External links
  2. Some of the cite/ref you provide are not appropriate and when I have time I will probably remove half of them
  3. You still need some links to establish notability and more specifically, secondary sources from reliable sources. What comes to mind is a published (non-blog) review of either the company or product. It would help if those sources were also from a company which is an article in WP, such as Forbes. Alternately, a review or testimonial from a customer (on their website), again preferably from a company which has an article on WP, such as Microsoft.
Hope that helps you out some. I understand that this will probably be your biggest struggle point if this information really does not exist yet. However, it is, for the most part, essential in order for your article to be valid and survive an almost inevitable PROD or CSD if published as is. :) Unfortunately I am out of time for this week to help you along. Our company is relocating this week and it is going to move in a whirl-wind of 3 days. Good luck! Tiggerjay 06:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colayer Platform page back

Tiggerjay, is it possible to get back the Colayer Platform page which was delete earlier? Even if it is under the main Dhoom4 page it is fine. I need to have the contents please.Thanks Dhoom4 11:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortnately I'm simply an editor like yourself and have no access to the page history. Perhaps the deleting administrator or one of the other administrators you have interacted can assist you further. You can also see the "help me" tag to get assistance. Tiggerjay 05:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Very well, thank you for your assistance Dhoom4 05:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] August 2007

Okay, here we are again. Our new office is wonderful and I'm still unpacking my office, but have a little bit of time here for you...

  • I see two dates for incorporation 2003 (infobox) and 2004 (history).
  • 2000-2003 - see ?? marks I placed, this reads a bit confusing

Other work in progress - will get back to this later today. Tiggerjay 13:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Great. Thank a lot. I have made the change in the infobox whereas I dont see or understand your 2nd hint related to question marks in 2000-2003. I hope by now you are settled in your new office. Where is it by the way? Dhoom4 07:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advertisement

The article has improved a great deal, and I applaud Dhoom4 and Tiggerjay for this. However, I still feel that some portions of the article read like advertising copy. This paragraph from the lead:

Colayer offers a context-driven platform to build social interactive Web 2.0 environments and Virtual workplaces for Knowledge intensive enterprises. The aim is to make professionals more efficient in business communication by being faster and better informed.

is, in my opinion, far too vague to actually mean anything, and sounds more like something from the "about" page of a corporate website. The use of the buzzword "Web 2.0" (which is poorly defined at best) and the external linking of another buzzword, "Knowledge intensive", further compounds this. While I understand a company might not have a rigidly defined set of products, can we have a concise description of the products (like those described further down the article) in the lead instead of this paragraph? Cheers, Tangotango (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint. Will add product descriptions into seperate paras Dhoom4 07:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, we'll see what we can do. Again, I'm just an editor who is helping Dhoom4 who really knows this product/company. Thanks agian! Tiggerjay 01:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Tiggerjay for commenting the para Dhoom4 07:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

The introduction is too brief and doesn't describe the business. See WP:LEAD for guidelines. (While the intro needs work, it's probably a last priority).

As I pointed out earlier, the article needs to be more focused on the Colayer's notability. As is, the article could very well be put up for deletion.

In general, each major section should have secondary sources to verify the information and show that the information is being treated neutrally. --Ronz 03:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Company introduction revert

Tiggerjay, based on suggestion by Ronz "The introduction is too brief and doesn't describe the business" I had added small introduction about the company. I did maintain it to be encyclopedic and on the extracts of the content on the page. Therefore I am not sure why you made the reversal. Would be glad to hear your views. Thanks Dhoom4 09:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The introduction should summarize the article. As long as we have major concerns about the article content, it's probably best to leave the introduction alone until their resolved. --Ronz 15:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] what does this company do?

the WP:LEAD section gives me absolutely no idea what this company does. --jacobolus (t) 19:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)