Talk:CT Connect

Major edit

I have attempted a fairly major edit of this article to achieve a more suitable tone, organize references, and reduce wordiness. I think I may have flagged the edit in error as "minor" -- I thought I was checking a box that said "major"! Sorry.

My major edit was followed by a few minor edits to correct typos etc.

Additional sources, references etc. are welcomed!

Cstrathmeyer (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Still Needs Work

The article is still written with a lot of fluff and appears more promotional than encyclopedic. Stating facts that are supported by indepedent citations and references would be better than giving personal experience. The use of press releases as citations does not generally meet WP's criteria as reliable sourcing. Calltech (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed & Looking for help

>...giving personal experience...

I hope I have not written about personal experience. Rather, these are facts of which I became aware because of my work in the field. I do not intend the article to contain any "personal recollections" or opinions. Please point out any remaining personal content in the article, and please point out any facts that seem unsupported.

>The use of press releases as citations...

Understood. The problem is that there is little academic documentation for commercial history. Does anyone have suggestions for appropriate citations to back up dates and content of product releases? I hasten to add that I include this information not for promotional purposes, but rather to document the evolution time-line of CTI technology.

>The article is still written with a lot of fluff...

Please point out examples here and I'd be happy to make appropriate edits.

Cstrathmeyer (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Statements such as the following:

"CT Connect's broad support for telephone switch link protocols, client APIs and operating systems made it an attractive CTI component for call center application developers. CT Connect sales, which had been sluggish under Digital Equipment ownership, increased dramatically"

appear throughout and need to be written in a neutral fashion and supported with independent citations. Just knowing that it is true doesn't suffice. Calltech (talk) 08:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Good example, thanks. I am genuinely puzzled what to do, though. I can demonstrate the "broad support" (that's why I cited the press releases, for example; I may also be able to locate a 300+ page technical manual online to cite if needed). But although I was privy to sales figures back then, I don't have those old records (they are in the possession of the companies involved), and even if I had them the data would be their confidential property. Similarly, during this time period, I was privy to the large number of 3rd party application developers who licensed and used the product. But I do not have the records now, and even if I did, that information would be confidential property of the parties involved.

Would it be helpful to have "corroborating testimony" from individuals? Or is this first-party information simply inadmissible in a Wikipedia article? Cstrathmeyer (talk) 12:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It's inadmissible unless another source can back it up. Around here we refer to it as original research. It's sometimes hard to get around in cases like this, but it is necessary nonetheless. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Another round of edits

User:DGG suggested adding descriptive/explanatory information about CT Connect and pointed out some confusing and incomplete areas that needed help.

I have also found some contemporaneous trade magazine reports and substituted them for many of the press release citations. I am now looking for citable references for the remaining unsupported facts as well as non-press-release sources to replace the remaining press releases. It's hard given the subject matter. Hopefully I will find enough to avoid the dreaded "original research" label.

Thank you all for your constructive help. Cstrathmeyer (talk) 14:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

PS: One more thought - User:DGG suggested including the titles of the patents cited in the References. Should I put all the titles in the reference (thus making a bulky reference) or do something else? Formatting help invited! Cstrathmeyer (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Third round of edits - found more authoritative sources

I have found published book citations that cover the material for which I had been using press release citations. I have removed all the press release citations and moved/recast some of the material that was formerly under History to make it more descriptive instead of historical.

I believe that the book citations adequately back up the assertion that CT Connect is the most "open" of available CTI servers. Carden and Margulies, in particular, provide notability (each devotes a chapter to CT Connect) and many of the facts that are reported in the article. Note that Flatiron Publishing, although a small specialist house, was/is the premier publishing house for technical information on computer telephony.

I'm still wondering how to handle the patent citations... suggestions welcome. Cstrathmeyer (talk) 15:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on CT Connect. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090502031313/http://www.syntellect.com/pages/about/Press/envox.aspx to http://www.syntellect.com/pages/about/press/envox.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090112074001/http://www.envox.com/company/news.asp?display=detail&id=185 to http://envox.com/company/news.asp?display=detail&id=185

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Notability

I tried to look into this, but all the sources are offline/paywalled, and I couldn't find much else. Still, given the FUTON bias, I am unwilling to either remove the notability template nor nominate it for AfD. The references suggest this topic may have an entry in at least one book that calls itself an encyclopedia, so.... Maybe someone will eventually care enough to access one of the books in a library, or maybe they will be digitized someday. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)