148.252.158.62

Sphere Media

The point of the article is not to read like a public relations profile that might have been posted by the company itself, such as by deeply delving into the minutiae of every individual business transaction it ever undertook — it's to read like an encyclopedia article, distinguishing between what's important information about the company and what's just trivia or marketing-speak.

So the reason the article was trimmed back in the first place is that it contained a lot of trivial and advertorialized content that was not actually helping to build or sustain the company's notability by properly encyclopedic standards at all — so it was rewritten to be a neutral summary of the most important information about the company instead of an exhaustive press release. So please don't readd all of the content that was trimmed, because the article doesn't need all of that. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

You can't remove sources for no reason, there not advertorialized they were actually helpful the entire time. Don't blame this IP user for what he did. 148.252.158.104 (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

You can remove sources that are superfluous to other sources (we're more concerned with the quality of the sources than the number of footnotes, so we only ever need one good footnote per statement rather than a citation overkill stack of three, four or five footnotes per statement), and you can remove content that's written in an inappropriate or unencyclopedic tone and/or delving deeper than necessary into insider baseball that a person who's looking for a basic overview of the company doesn't need. And I'd advise you to watch your tone, because I'm a site administrator and have the power to temporarily or permanently block editors who behave uncivilly or disruptively. Bearcat (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

---