Talk:FROG (mobile homepage)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article was created in accordance with the Wikipedia:Notability guideline. Wikipeditan 00:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like it can turn into something worth while. But definatly needs cleaning up and less advertising. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 00:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- What portion do you consider advertising? I did make a genuine attempt to write the article in accordance with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view but I do nonetheless welcome specific suggestions on how to improve the article. To quote G11, "Note that simply having e.g. a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion; an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well." Wikipeditan 00:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- I did not mean any disrespect when adding that template. I do see that you actually took time to make the article look respectable and such. The only thing that doesn't seem to fit on Wikipedia is that most of the external links appear to be reviews of the product. If this is a mistake, please forgive me. I just think it could use a little cleanup, notably in the area of external links, and maybe about the mention of the awards and such. It is only a tag, and not meant to mean any harm, and not meant to marked for deletion. I think this article can become useful on Wikipedia, with just a little tweaking. Hope we're all on good terms. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 00:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to respond. No offense was taken, and we are on good terms. I included the external links, and mention of the award, in order to show that the Wikipedia:Notability guideline had been satisfied. Do you have any specific suggestions on how to cleanup the external links, and mention of the award, yet achieve the same result? Wikipeditan 00:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think a general expansion would make it look better. I think I figured out why it looks more like an ad. It's because the actual text is smaller then the See also, References, and Further reading sections together. A good thing to work on would be looking into the Further reading materials and using information from them to include in the article, perhaps about the product's history, use, and possibly the future of it (without being WP:CRYSTAL). Then these can be used as cited source. 'Further reading' sections are kind of frowned upon on Wikipedia, as it is not just a directory of external links related to a topic. That's what search engines are for :p. But it was definatly a good idea to include the information about the award, to make it meat notability requirements. Good luck, and if you need any help, just ask. I'll keep watching this article to see how it turns out. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 00:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- As suggested, I have expanded the article and moved several of the sources from the 'Further reading' section to the 'References' section, after using them as cited sources. Two articles do nonetheless remain in the 'Further reading' section, in accordance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)#Standard_appendices. I am not aware of the product's history or possible future use, other than the obvious. Accordingly, I have removed the advert tag. Wikipeditan 01:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Looks good! I embeded the citations into the article for you. If you want, take a look at how it works, so you know for future use. If you're unsure of how it works from looking at it, just let me know and I can explain it. The article looks really good, and as everyone else on Wikipedia is, it's a work in progress. Hope you're having a good time editing on Wikipedia. If you need any more help in the future, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 03:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- As suggested, I have expanded the article and moved several of the sources from the 'Further reading' section to the 'References' section, after using them as cited sources. Two articles do nonetheless remain in the 'Further reading' section, in accordance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)#Standard_appendices. I am not aware of the product's history or possible future use, other than the obvious. Accordingly, I have removed the advert tag. Wikipeditan 01:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think a general expansion would make it look better. I think I figured out why it looks more like an ad. It's because the actual text is smaller then the See also, References, and Further reading sections together. A good thing to work on would be looking into the Further reading materials and using information from them to include in the article, perhaps about the product's history, use, and possibly the future of it (without being WP:CRYSTAL). Then these can be used as cited source. 'Further reading' sections are kind of frowned upon on Wikipedia, as it is not just a directory of external links related to a topic. That's what search engines are for :p. But it was definatly a good idea to include the information about the award, to make it meat notability requirements. Good luck, and if you need any help, just ask. I'll keep watching this article to see how it turns out. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 00:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to respond. No offense was taken, and we are on good terms. I included the external links, and mention of the award, in order to show that the Wikipedia:Notability guideline had been satisfied. Do you have any specific suggestions on how to cleanup the external links, and mention of the award, yet achieve the same result? Wikipeditan 00:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- I did not mean any disrespect when adding that template. I do see that you actually took time to make the article look respectable and such. The only thing that doesn't seem to fit on Wikipedia is that most of the external links appear to be reviews of the product. If this is a mistake, please forgive me. I just think it could use a little cleanup, notably in the area of external links, and maybe about the mention of the awards and such. It is only a tag, and not meant to mean any harm, and not meant to marked for deletion. I think this article can become useful on Wikipedia, with just a little tweaking. Hope we're all on good terms. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 00:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- What portion do you consider advertising? I did make a genuine attempt to write the article in accordance with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view but I do nonetheless welcome specific suggestions on how to improve the article. To quote G11, "Note that simply having e.g. a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion; an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well." Wikipeditan 00:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
