Talk:NamePros

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Recreated article[edit]

NamePros has grown a lot since the old article was deleted, so I figured I'd recreate it. Feedback appreciated. Thanks! —Zenexer [talk] 17:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding sources[edit]

Hi User:Zenexer, thanks for your work on this article. However, I'm concerned that many of the sources are not compliant with WP's guidelines. Specifically many of them are personal blogs with no editorial staff, awards or accreditation. Please have a look at WP:BLOG. Thanks-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop continually removing content. This is clearly not an industry in which you have experience because you aren't familiar with the sources being cited. I am perfectly familiar with the relevant policies. I didn't cite any personal blogs as far as I'm aware; those are all commercial, typically with hired experts as authors. (That's why their writing is usually poor: they're industry experts, not writers.) Please wait and discuss these drastic alterations before making changes. If you would like to add your own citations, that is fine. Don't remove content unless you have sufficient reason to believe that it is invalid. You can read more information about this policy at WP:REMOVAL. This is now the second time I've had to revert your removals. The first time there was no explanation or notice from you whatsoever. —Zenexer [talk] 22:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to undo individual edits and keep valid changes, but the majority of the changes were invalid and it was too messy. Some of your changes also introduced minor inaccuracies; for example, vBulletin and XenForo are not website "formats." Many of your changes were also stylistic; see WP:STYLE. Quote from that page: "Style and formatting should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia. Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason. Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable.[b] If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. If a style or similar debate becomes intractable, see if a rewrite can make the issue moot." —Zenexer [talk] 22:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to read: WP:OWNERSHIP.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with that. Collaboration means working together, not gutting pages. I would object to anyone doing this to any valid page, not just one to which I contributed. At the same time, I'm aware that some pages are beyond recovery. I'm concerned that many of your removals and structural edits are based on (subjective) opinions about how an article and citations should appear, and that these opinions do not represent a community consensus. —Zenexer [talk] 20:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


WP:BLOGS[edit]

This WP guideline says [bold added by me]:

  • Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.

Thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Domain Registration[edit]

I've removed this citation for the founding date of the company.

  • "whois:namepros.com">"Namepros.com Whois Lookup". Who.is. Retrieved 2014-08-28.

That only says when the domain name was registered. It conveys no information about the founding of the company. Please see WP:OR-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly original research; it's just a primary source, which admittedly isn't always the best option. Here, though, it's the most authoritative source we're likely to see because it can't easily be manipulated. While I agree that such as source often isn't ideal, in this case, I think it's the best option. There are other sources (ICANNWiki, CrunchBase, etc.), but they'll hold less authority in the eyes of a typical reader of this article (someone in the domain name industry).
I'm a bit discouraged that you didn't even try to find an alternative source on your own. Removing acceptable sources isn't constructive; even a sub-optimal source is better than none, as long as it's not too shady. The typical Wikipedia policy is not to remove content or citations without also trying to add a replacement. If you had done even a quick Google search, you could've easily found the CrunchBase page. —Zenexer [talk] 22:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The source does not support the cited text. The sources tells when the domain name was registered. That's all. It does not say when the forum was created or when the company was founded.
I left the text there with a fact tag so someone could find and add a source sometime in the future.
Please stop with the personal attacks per WP:TALK we are here to discuss content not people. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I found specific actions discouraging. You appear to be a reputable member of the Wikipedia community, and I did not mean to imply that I am judging you as a person based on a few edits with which I disagree. My understanding is that the policy on Wikipedia is not to remove facts/citations unless there is significant reason to doubt their legitimacy/correctness. In my personal opinion, it would have been better to raise the issue on the talk page, or to add a {{fact}} template without removing the existing citation.
Back to the primary topic: I've found at least one interview that mentions the founding date. Additionally, archive.org seems to indicate that the website was accessible sometime during or shortly after Feb 2003. The first is a primary source and the second could be considered original research, so I'm not entirely sure what to do here. There's a significant amount of evidence floating around that the website began around Feb 2003, but no single source seems suitable by these standards. What's the best course of action in that case? —Zenexer [talk] 20:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Domain Gang blog[edit]

I've also removed this citation:

There is no indication at the site for the Domain Gang blog that there is any editorial staff or fact checking. In fact the site gives a disclaimer which says their content is mainly satire:

  • Disclaimer: All posts, information and content on the web site DomainGang.com are fictional, humorous and depict a satire - unless a "100%" image is present. The intent of DomainGang.com is to provide entertainment via the public release of content related to the domaining industry or other social aspects of life. We are not to be held responsible for any damage caused by your failure to comprehend the context of satiric content. By accessing DomainGang.com and perusing the DomainGang.com information and content you fully agree that you are aware of and consent to this Disclaimer.

So I don't see any way it meets the criteria for a reliable source per WP:RS.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the "speculation" in the history section cited to this blog and regurgitated at Above.com.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Legal threats are a big problem in the domain industry because there is a lot of money changing hands. Some of their articles on that site are satirical, but many are not; that disclaimer is there to avoid liability. They are a big name in the industry and their content is regularly referenced. —Zenexer [talk] 22:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's some info here about how DomainGang marks factual content. Anything without that mark is considered satirical, I believe.
If you want to find an alternative source, Domaining.com lists quite a few news/blog sites relevant to domaining. Some are trustworthy and some aren't. —Zenexer [talk] 23:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is a personal blog with no editorial staff. Would you like to bring it to the WP:RS noticeboard to see what others have to say since we seem to disagree?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a thread at WP:RS. Let's see what others have to say. [1]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added my counter-argument. —Zenexer [talk] 20:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TLD Investors[edit]

According to their About page, TLD investors has an editorial staff so, in my mind, they do qualify as a reliable source.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MorganLinton.com[edit]

Seems to have a staff and may qualify as a source. [2]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DomainerIncome blog[edit]

This seems like a personal blog and may not qualify as a source.[3]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although it appears to be operated by a single person, it's quite obviously not a personal blog. As you can see here, it's a commercial website. —Zenexer [talk] 22:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the blog owner accepts ads does not make it a reliable source. Would you like to ask about this one at WP:RS also? I'll go with whatever they consensus is there.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've started a discussion at WP:RS. Let's see what others have to say. [4]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added my counter-argument. —Zenexer [talk] 20:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DomainCrunch blog[edit]

This one seems OK.[5]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on NamePros. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:NamePros&oldid=1201454956"