Talk:On2 Technologies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Financial Information Removal

Is the long listing of financial information normal for Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.50.14 (talk • contribs) 10 March 2007

No, such content is not encyclopedic. I removed it all.--Boffob 23:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I thought that information was rather nice to have. I guess it may be obvious that I feel that way, since I contributed much of it. In any case, I think the complete blanking of the section was rather brutal. Do you object to all financial information, or just to that degree of detail? –SudoMonas 02:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:NOT...--Boffob 06:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

What part of it do you think applies to that material? None of those issues seemed to exactly fit the situation to me. And again I ask: Do you object to all financial information, or just to that degree of detail? —SudoMonas 17:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#DIR, WP:NOT#NEWS. Wiki's not there to give you news about the financial performance of the company.--Boffob 20:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That material covered the full history of the company, back to 1999, so it was hardly news. It was also certainly not a directory. Sorry, but I still don't see any policy violation here. I think you're off base by calling this a policy issue. I also think that financial performance is highly relevant to a proper introduction to any company. Good financial performance is generally considered the #1 priority of most companies, isn't it? —SudoMonas 03:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You didn't read it properly then. WP:NOT#INFO: Being true is not sufficient criterion for inclusion. The fact that you yourself removed older financial information over time proves that it's encycopledically irrelevant news with no long-term historical notability. Wiki is not the company, it's an encyclopedia that's not there to give the full financial history of the company.--Boffob 15:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you weren't pointing me to WP:NOT#INFO. You were pointing me to WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#NEWS. Is it the degree of detail that you're objecting to? (Please note that I have asked that question twice before, and I do not see a direct response.) Would a summary of the historical financial performance of the company be acceptable to you? –SudoMonas 19:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Also please note that it is not actually true that I "removed older financial information over time". I did reduce the degree of detail in some older financial information (dropping quarterly results after annual results would seem to suffice), but I didn't remove older results entirely. To me it seems natural that older information should ordinarily appear in a more summarized form in such an article. Two weeks have now passed without a reply to my repeated question above. Perhaps there is no objection to having a historical summary of financial performance with somewhat less detail than was previously in the article? –SudoMonas 17:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, I tried to point to the more relevant sections of WP:NOT without having you read the entire article. But read again the idea of long term historical notability and no sprawling list of statistics. Financial performance in numbers is not notable in an encyclopedic sense. Major transactions such as acquiring another notable company are relevant; quarterly, or yearly numbers are not. Wikipedia is not there to attract investors for this company (as that would be advertisement) nor is it a financial consulting service. You seem to be the only one who really cares about adding such info to this article for your own book-keeping. Please don't use Wiki as your notepad.--Boffob 00:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)