From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article Reads Like the About Page

A lot of this article reads like an advertisement or an about page for this service and does not seem to come from an encyclopedic or neutral point of view. 50.141.33.124 ( talk) 06:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Agree. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC) reply
I removed or tagged some weakly-sourced material. The article instead be sourced to stronger sources, such as:

Rolf H Nelson ( talk) 15:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC) reply

So is the advertisement template still relevant? I'm not really seeing a problem at the moment, as the article doesn't exactly have an 'awards' or 'recognition' section... Donkey Hot-day ( talk) 18:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC) reply
I think it is still relevant. Pages can have awards and/or recognition sections, those are not necessarily problematic. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 19:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC) reply
I think we can safely remove the advert template at this point. MHS371 ( talk) 16:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Who owns it?

Who owns it? BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 07:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC) reply

"Quartz (magazine)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Quartz (magazine) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 11#Quartz (magazine) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 04:59, 11 August 2022 (UTC) reply

The outcome was keep; FOUR reasoned votes to keep, and the nomination was (only) because someone questioned whether it was a magazine or a an online news website or possibly (merely) a weblog/blog. The winning argument was these types of sites evolve, and that WP:RS such as WashPost, BBC, The Economist refer to/cite them, all as magazine, not a publication, and also that redirects "are cheap" (re computer resources). Nuts240 ( talk) 05:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC) reply


QZ vs. UA: dropping reason for why QUARTZ was so-named

A convenience sample of English text, when deDuped, showed 101 QU words and 67 words with UA but not having a Q before the U. Visualize has a Z but no Q, and has UA; so does Actualize. The article's citing of a Press Release as to why it was so-named is not a reason to keep this information. As to who their initial employees were and their prior work record, that needs WP:RS. Nuts240 ( talk) 01:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC) reply

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article Reads Like the About Page

A lot of this article reads like an advertisement or an about page for this service and does not seem to come from an encyclopedic or neutral point of view. 50.141.33.124 ( talk) 06:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Agree. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC) reply
I removed or tagged some weakly-sourced material. The article instead be sourced to stronger sources, such as:

Rolf H Nelson ( talk) 15:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC) reply

So is the advertisement template still relevant? I'm not really seeing a problem at the moment, as the article doesn't exactly have an 'awards' or 'recognition' section... Donkey Hot-day ( talk) 18:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC) reply
I think it is still relevant. Pages can have awards and/or recognition sections, those are not necessarily problematic. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 19:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC) reply
I think we can safely remove the advert template at this point. MHS371 ( talk) 16:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Who owns it?

Who owns it? BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 07:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC) reply

"Quartz (magazine)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Quartz (magazine) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 11#Quartz (magazine) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 04:59, 11 August 2022 (UTC) reply

The outcome was keep; FOUR reasoned votes to keep, and the nomination was (only) because someone questioned whether it was a magazine or a an online news website or possibly (merely) a weblog/blog. The winning argument was these types of sites evolve, and that WP:RS such as WashPost, BBC, The Economist refer to/cite them, all as magazine, not a publication, and also that redirects "are cheap" (re computer resources). Nuts240 ( talk) 05:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC) reply


QZ vs. UA: dropping reason for why QUARTZ was so-named

A convenience sample of English text, when deDuped, showed 101 QU words and 67 words with UA but not having a Q before the U. Visualize has a Z but no Q, and has UA; so does Actualize. The article's citing of a Press Release as to why it was so-named is not a reason to keep this information. As to who their initial employees were and their prior work record, that needs WP:RS. Nuts240 ( talk) 01:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC) reply


Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook