Talk:Third Voice

POV

Having concentrated on copying what seems like relevant but possibly skewed content from Activeweave and also having noticed what may be somewhat similar content having been removed previously and having otherthings to do for a while .... I am going to:

• Leave the 'Under construction' template in place
• Leave the POV in place as I have no certainty whose POV is right or wrong
• (At least temporarily) Remove added content that may be disparaging and disputed

It is important the copied template remains in place. I wwill leave the disputed neutrality template in place.

I will come back within a day or two, more important things prevailing, and to decide how to go.

Thankyou.

Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I am pleased to report there was no issues with POV when I came to look back carefully.

Notes September 2018

When I looked carefully at the content copied from 'Activeweave' I determined the references copied were the same, however activeweave has exploited the references better and had given the Gem of the idea about spam and security vulnerablities. I've kludged a few extra sentences and perhaps more importantly added for cites. We aware people are currently only able to access a limited number of 'Wired' articles a month. There is more information on the references that could be used to improve the article, and a software infobox could be added (Dont do a company infobox). I get the feel this company was in the vanguard of web annotation but I don't have WP:RS to justify this claim (I may have missed something in the references) ... some (but not necessarily all) of the Wired articles are Press Releases. I dont intend to improve the article any further so your're welcome to tidy it and move it forward. Thanks. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 18 September 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. A redirect will be created. (closed by non-admin page mover) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

---

Third Voice → Third Voice (software) – I am reasonably certain pressure may come for other uses of 'Third Voice' that have or will have precedence over this article. While no such article currently exists to my knowledge there is potential for such an article and I would see 'Third World' becoming a disambiguation page in the future, though initially it might remain a link. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment:If there was a disambiguation it may well be no topic will have claim to be the primary topic over a long term.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
• I have just observed the article The 3rd Voice so creation of a DAB page following the move would seem most reasonable. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
• Third Voice (disambiguation) In ictu oculi (talk) 07:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• To some extent I was hoping for Third Voice itself to be the DAB page with no need to create Third Voice (disambiguation) as other pages may likely be created which have a better claim to be primary topic than this article. However as that DAB page has been created I have added a hatnote from this article to it, which was perhaps the most needed thing. There are also various inbound links to here bu I'd like to defer those to the end of the move discussion. Thankyou Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, normally I'd be inclined to say so to, but ""named third voice" in Google Books only produces this company which was notable in the late 90s. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the opinion. There's some (indirect) contenders ... perhaps likely currently non notable from a Wikipedia sense ... There's a band, ISBN-13: 978-1843915553, The LGBT? media outlet in India who made a haphazard attempt to hijack this article though recently active on commons, some articles related to the third voice in T.S. Eliot’s ‘The Waste Land’. Plus it is used in various articles from time to time relating to a third or alternative opinion to the mainstream. So I can't see this article holding primary topic for ever and it is probably the case nothing should be primary topic for 'third voice'. That's my sort of thinking and I think that's the way the DAB specialists might go ... the're certainly taking that approach for some geography articles. I guess we're now waiting for a third voice! Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I think that at least a redirect should be created from the proposed title Third Voice (software), as Third Voice is ambiguous. Otherwise, a reader looking at a result list and wanting this topic needs to guess that the article at Third Voice is on the software. Andrewa (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

• There is already a hatnote at the top of this article to the DAB page, albeit dwarfed by the move page. If the move occurs the DAB can be moved to third voice and the only question is if Third Voice remains primary topic on the DAB (or if there are any manual of style issues on the DAB which is not my area of expertise) ... assuming I've understood your comment correctly. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

• The hatnote deals with people who arrive at this page but want another topic. The redir, on the other hand, deals with people who do want this topic, but who otherwise need to guess that this ambiguous title will lead them to the article they want. Andrewa (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry misunderstood. Yes absolutely. Following a move this page should be replaced by a redirect to Third Voice (Software) or a DAB. The default when moving is a redirect is left. Nothing links here (now) so its an orphan.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, a move will generate a redirect. But my point is, meantime and also if the move does not take place, the article is at an ambiguous name and so a redirect from an unambiguous name would be of great help to those searching for it. (Perhaps I should just have boldly created it.) The fact that nothing wikilinks here is irrelevant; There are many other ways of arriving at an article. Andrewa (talk) 22:16, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

• I would suggest holding on creating the link as their could be a counter proposal to move it to Third Voice(foobar) or something and we all suddenly agree that is great. But should it not move creating that link would be good, and if it did not move I'd be happy with that being created. In the meantime it might be best if you explicitly made a vote to support the move .. (I think you are in support) ... perhaps by starting a line Support in bold and when it comes round again the reviewer will take note of that. (Or reject or suggest an alternative name). thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC) In fact Third Voice(web annotation system) might be regarded as viable and more definitive title, however some would think the over the top, so I currently keep by proposal as is.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Support: As nominator I continue to support this move. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC) Explicit vote withdrawn in respect of Andrewa's comment below. Per WP:RM#Commenting in a requested move Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Note that this !vote is not actually required, see WP:RM#Commenting in a requested move: Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line. Andrewa (talk) 03:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. No other wp:notable use. Arguable WP:TWODABS situation with the film, but that's about it. No purpose served by needless disambiguation here. Feel free to bluelink the target, though. Dohn joe (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• Withdraw nom support As nominator I feel this is move request is good faith disrupted by the DAB page creation, questions relating to its use as example in an RFC, failure to action promptly, over focus on any DAB rather than the move and lack of positive support for the move or a move to an alternate name, and finally an oppose vote. While I am entitled to withdraw support I am unsure if I can actually close so that is left to those more familiar to the process. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

I have refrained from formally !voting on this as I'm interested in the outcome as possible evidence that no article should be at an ambiguous name, see User:Andrewa/Primary Topic RfC. Andrewa (talk) 03:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Well there is now Third Voice (disambiguation), so if moved, that should be there but there doesn't appear to be another use of "Third Voice" ON WP. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately? that DAB was created during the move discussion and now has I believed led to an oppose vote.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

09:01, 17 September 2018 edit

The deletion log for my edit of 09:01, 17 September 2018 says changed visibility of 2 revisions on page Third Voice: content hidden ‎(Irrelevant content, copied from an article to be deleted, and since removed from here. Purely disruptive, with copyright problems.). For the record I dispute the allegation Purely disruptive without prejudice to the person who made the allegation who had to deal with the copyright issue. If I had not made that edit I may have run into copyright violation issues, though how the article subsequently ended up being improved 21:18 to 23:20 may/could/should have been possible without that merge as from memory only references from that revision were finally used to the best of my memory which would have been cut and pasted from that revision. I am also aware this may not have been a best practice following of the WP:MERGETEXT procedure for which I offer apologies and from which I have subsequently practiced better on other merges. Regardless of 'how' I believe worthwhile improvements to this article were achieved on 17 September 2018 and 24 September 2018 which perhaps longer term is the main point. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)