Talk:Apple Inc./Archive 5

message: What is up with all these "citation required" and the numereous citations???  So as long as someone cites any publication, then it is all good nevermind that the people who write those articles might not be any more knowledgable than a Wiki writer?  The number of citations included just for the list of Apple Fellows is ridiculous.  So is requiring a citation describing the length of the crowds at the NYC and Tokyo openings; if I was there and I witnessed it, it doesn't count until someone quotes me in the NY Times?  Is there some pedant demanding a citation for everything?  There is almost as many citations here as there is in the Homosexuality article; and Apple Computer is a far less controversial topic ... but I guess I would need a citation for that statement too right? 66.171.76.241 04:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review Wikipedia core policies to understand why citations are necessary.  See Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.  Verifiability in particular answers nearly all of your questions.  If you have an issue with that policy, raise it there.--Coolcaesar 04:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I have reviewed it and it still does not answer my concerns. Check out how citations are almost nonexistant in articles for mathematics, physics, philosophy (even Communism), and biography of famous musicians. My point is that there are so many citations and citations requirements of petty facts in the sections "User Culture" and "Criticism" that it degrades the overall quality of the article. Anyway that's all I have to say on this.66.171.76.241 03:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The general rule is that the less controversial the subject, the less need for citations.  For example, pure mathematics is relatively uncontroversial (except for certain obscure cutting-edge areas).  But other controversial areas, like law and business, need more citations.  For example, when I first drafted the article on Roger J. Traynor, I was immediately challenged on the issue of whether he was notable.  I dug up some citations and no one has brought up the issue again.  That is how Wikipedia works.--Coolcaesar 17:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The general rule is that the less controversial the subject, the less need for citations" - not if you are planning on FACing it... you generelly need every claim cited. These kind of articles are more difficult then books and such because the references are generally more numerous. Microsoft is an article I contributed a lot to and I think is a good example of this kind of article and the referencing requirements. RN 22:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: This section was nothing but unreferenced criticisms and has been for a long time. -  Mike | trick or treat  13:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done! Mushroom (Talk) 13:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted "Analysis" 

message: I've done a little cleanup on it, and removed that awful "Analysis" POV section. Now there are only a few things in need of a citation in the article. The article is well-written and a good timeline. Does anybody object to me nominating this for GA? -  Mike | trick or treat  16:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now nominted. Let's see how this goes! -  Mike | trick or treat  01:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think this article is back up to GA standards 

message: Is it reall necessary to include it? Lots of major computer corporations have hight Alexa rankings...to me it goes without saying. If it should be listed, it certainly doesn't deserve its own section, so I have moved it to the lead, although I'm not sure that's the best place for it either. -  Mike | trick or treat  16:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexa ranking 

message: Per nomination, GA status has been granted and tags applied appropriately.  Sourcing looks good, however my major piece of advice would be to shrink this article -- lots of good info, but sometimes we gotta pick and choose what to include.  That being said, I think this is a pretty good article.  Side note -- I do not own any apple products, and have not contributed to (or, before last night, even read) this article.  Good job, guys!  /Blaxthos 18:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Status 

message: Should there be financial infirmation $ sales, profits, number of employeesXSebX 03:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, which is why that information is in the infobox. Guy Harris 23:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Financial Information 

message: I just viewed this page, and saw Apple's 2 previous logos instead of the computer-rendered Apple logo. Shouldn't the logo have stayed as the computer-rendered version?
Moronicles 21:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - I've put that back.  The infobox should have the current logo; the older logos are in a history section, where they belong. Guy Harris 21:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Currently-Used Logo 

message: Although not a requirement, I think that standardizing the cite tags would be a big improvement for this article.  A lot of the references are of the external-link variety, whereas some ref name="foo" and cite templates would really improve the readability of the article. /Blaxthos 09:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference cleanup 

message: Someone please merge, delete or something to Apple PenLite. --meatclerk 11:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new Article to merge 

message: there's been a lot of buzz about the upcoming iPhone, I've seen several articles on news sites... should it be mentioned? (I would do it, but I have no idea how) -- will200557 Dec. 4, 2006
:Let's wait for something official, or directly from the U.S. Patent Office.--HereToHelp 00:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  iPhone