| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the IP3 International article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Personnel: please make verifiable
edit@Tedder: thanks for your additions to the article! Please could you add citations so that readers can verify the claims you inserted about IP3's notable personnel? It strikes me that there may be a WP:BLP concern here, otherwise.
Thanks! Zazpot (talk) 09:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'll work on it; aside from the refs already in that section, the summaries (personal claims) are from the individual Wikipedia page, the personnel is from IP3 themselves. tedder (talk) 09:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hey @Zazpot:, I added a ref to each one to tie them with IP3. The summaries are from their articles, and like a lede section I don't think they need cites- but if you disagree, can you put a cn tag on the individual facts? tedder (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Notability
editThe controversy may be notable; it is doubtful the company is. Please rewrite this or this may be deleted due to failing WP:NORG. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that it is somewhat borderline, though all of the criteria for sources appears to be met (depth of coverage, amount of coverage, secondary, independent, etc), and I don't believe there's any equivalent of WP:BLP1E for organizations. Right? It'd make sense to let it go to AFD but preferably after letting it sit for a week or two. tedder (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Tedder: Tnx for commenting. We are approaching two weeks, not that much change. Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hey Piotrus. Ultimately we disagree, which is totally fine. If you want to take it to AFD, that'd certainly establish consensus. I'll probably just take my comment right above here and put that as my !vote. tedder (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Tedder: Tnx for commenting. We are approaching two weeks, not that much change. Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Adopt list-defined references
editThis article has a very high ratio of references to text. That is a good for WP:VERIFIABILITY, but makes the article somewhat hard to edit. In my view, it will become easier to edit, while losing none of the WP:VERIFIABILITY benefits, if it is migrated to list-defined referencing. I propose to do that, unless anybody either beats me to it, or raises objections that are substantive enough to indicate a lack of consensus, within a reasonable period of time. Zazpot (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, very much so. I just haven't done it before. Feel free to touch Draft:OctoPrint next, it's even worse. tedder (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)