# Talk:Bomis

The citation method currently used is unorthodox and uncomfortable, IMO. Looking through this talk page I understand that it was changed to its current format in 2014 in order to mirror the method often used in FAs. The problem, such that I see it, is that in FAs this citation method (short form in "References" and more detailed form in "Bibliography") is usually used, and IMO works well, only for books. When used for websites as it is here, it is uncomfortable and makes a very long "Bibliography" section. Looking through the past couple TFAs I don't see any use this exact format.
Am I the only one who thinks this? Would there be any significant opposition to my changing the citation method yet again, to use the current post-2014 method for books and other printed sources and return to the "normal" pre-2014 long-form-in-references for websites and other electronic sources? I'll also see if I can introduce {{sfn}} into sourcing when I'm done. Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the citations. They can be interlinked like this. QuackGuru (talk) 09:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Given that websites don't (usually) have "pages" like a book does, a website need be cited only once in the References section. The current citation format essentially gives the "References" section twice, which is a pain IMO. I see the use of the format in books, and have myself written/contributed to FAs with that format, but there's no reason to have it for websites. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
The citation method is odd. I really wouldn't be against having a discussion about changing the style (in lieu of WP:CITEVAR). The Harv format was depreciated in September 2020. – The Grid (talk)  04:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

The "Analysis" section is just a bunch of seemingly random quotes about the company. Nothing indicates these mentions are inherently notable. Why is this included, and what is the "analysis" that it provides? --ZimZalaBim talk 15:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Now this is has been renamed "Description of site" which is even more non-encyclopedic. We don't need to include a bunch of opinions about a website unless they are notable in themselves. --ZimZalaBim talk 04:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
I disagree. We document what RS say about Bomis. This is part of what makes it notable enough for an article here, and it's of interest what reputation it has among RS. Bomis is the one that's notable, while the sources only have to be reliable. We document both facts and opinions here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

In the "Hosted Content" section a photo of Jimmy Wales in a yacht is described but not included. I'm not sure that the photo is notable or relevant to the article (maybe Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE?), but if it is mentioned, the photo itself (published by The Register here, seemingly under Jimmy Wales's copyright https://www.theregister.com/2012/03/12/jimbo_whitehall_divine_master/) should be included. In my opinion the photo does help convey Wales's image during the dot-com boom era, but that would make it more appropriate for his bio page than this one. 69.123.217.7 (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The beginning of the article, "Bomis (...from Bitter Old Men in Suits (rhyming with "promise")..." is written in this manner. Shouldn't there be another bracket after the "promise" part? So it would be "Bomis (...from Bitter Old Men in Suits (rhyming with "promise"))" 178.75.53.169 (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Fixed (not by me). All the best: Rich Farmbrough 10:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC).

Trivia, perhaps, but the line "Wales used money from Bomis to maintain the Wikipedia servers in Tampa, Florida." may give a slightly misleading impression.  For some time there was "a server" (I have no idea where it was) and it would be good to be sure that does not overlap Bomis 100% funding.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough 10:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC).