User talk:Spintendo

 Edit Request Categories

COI-ER •••••••••••••••••• 40
SP-ER ••••••••••••••••••• 80
EP-ER ••••••••••••••••••• 66

Pending

Task queue	State
Jon Rose article text review
Common Mistakes data dump
GA review

Thanks, and a question

Hey Spintendo, I just wanted to thank you for your patience and your help with my COI edit requests for AIG. I imagine you come under a lot of scrutiny from both sides, so I wanted to let you know that whether you're approving my edits or rejecting them, I appreciate that you're taking the time to review them at all. Going forward, I was curious if it would be better to reach out to you here for minor updates that may have been overlooked, or to edit or create a new edit request for review. For example, I realized that I mistakenly listed the removal of Bernard Connolly twice from the See also section rather than Bernard Connolly and MBIA. Similarly, would it have been best to change the answer parameter to "no" on David Cote request? At the time I wasn't aware that this would be an appropriate measure, but after your advice on AIG I was curious if that's your preferred way to flag you when I respond. I'll defer to your expertise, but I wanted to confirm if the conversation was fully closed at that point after you asked for guidance on my requested edits. Thanks again for all the help.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

It's usually a good idea to change the edit request answer parameter from yes to no, that way it gives other editors a chance to add their input if they'd like to, plus it keeps all the past actions for that particular aspect of a request together in one spot in case other editors want to see how the request has been handled at other times. In this case I'll go ahead and look at that request.  Spintendo      19:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

After reviewing the talk page, some of my questions have been answered, but others I would like input on to help me to better understand. So I've pinged other editors who have greater experience with the article to get their feedback, hopefully they will be able to help out on this subject. Regards,  Spintendo      19:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

It's been about a month, and no one has offered up any constructive feedback. I don't want to pull you into what feels like an already hostile situation, so I'm curious if you have any suggestions for other places I might be able to get someone to take a look at the proposed changes themselves, rather than antagonize me with assumptions about my work. I truly appreciate that you review my changes on the content itself and hold me to a high standard, and I respect your opinions when it comes to these situations. Am I being incredibly obtuse here, or do you think that my perception that I'm being judged by my character rather than my work holds water?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what article was this about? .spintendo⋅⋅) 23:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have specified. I was referencing the re-opening of the edit request here.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't see any current requests there. New or re-opened requests, like all posts, would go at the bottom of the page, and I don't see any there. As for a Fix the Debt article, that would go to WP:AFC. Regards, .spintendo⋅⋅) 02:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@FacultiesIntact: Was there an edit request that you wished to reopen? If so, please place the request in a new heading at the bottom of that page with a new template. Looking at the history of the page, it shows that I was the last person to edit it, about one month ago. So there is neither new nor reopened requests that I can see. Please advise. .spintendo⋅⋅) 05:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

A month ago I had reopened the edit request about the Attitude to deficit reduction section on David M. Cote (at your suggestion). You gave me a very well-thought out and fair response, and ultimately deferred to a discussion between the previously involved editors. Instead of commenting on the proposed content, however, they chastised me for my perceived behavior of attempting to "negotiate" the article content. You were kind enough to set the record straight, but there's still been no discussion between any of the other editors beyond that. I'm not asking you to jump back in, because I don't think that's fair to you, or really your problem at all. I'm just curious to hear your opinion on the matter, as I said above, because I respect you and the work you do, as well as the standards you've held me to on my other edit requests. Am I out of touch for thinking that I'm being antagonized for my COI, rather than my work itself? And if so, do you know of an appropriate place to discuss the issue?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate all that — but seeing as how I'm not a WP:MINDREADER, if you could just describe what it is about the attitude to deficit reduction section that you'd like changed, maybe I can help. Please advise. .spintendo⋅⋅) 02:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo, I'd suggest adding the Fix the Debt information to a Fix the Debt section of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget page. I found two other members of this committee, Antonio Villaraigosa and Peter Peterson that have similar information on their page and believe it would be more encyclopedic to move them. Specifically, Kevin Connors quote "They are spending millions, but they are protecting billions in defense contracts and tax giveaways that would otherwise be on the chopping block" doesn't make sense to be on David M. Cote's BLP.

In Peter Peterson's case: Fix the Debt redirects From Wikipedia search, to Peter Peterson's page. It's more intuitive navigation for it to redirect to Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, or to a new dedicated article.

In Antonio Villaraigosa's case: The section has a bias against the organization, but in any case, this could be added to the Fix the Debt page.

After he left the mayor's office, Villaraigosa was involved in Campaign to Fix the Debt, a movement for entitlement reform to cut Social Security and Medicare, which Democratic strategist Nathan Ballard said is "not just touching the third rail — it’s an act of public self-immolation."

I don't have a COI with the other members of this committee, but it seems the best way to improve Wikipedia on the whole is to reform the entire Fix the Debt page. DGG, you, and I all agreed that there should be an article to consolidate this information. Shall I present a sandbox of this? How do you suggest we move ahead with this?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I think a Fix The Debt section of the CRFB page might be a good idea if you want to propose it there, or if you would like it on its own page, then maybe it could go through WP:AFC (since they handle COI requests for article creation). I'm not entirely familiar with that process.  spintendo  02:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey, hope you've been doing well. I've been working on creating a new article on Fix the Debt, with content from the aforementioned articles, as well as some other research. I was wondering if you were interested in or had the time to take a look at it and offer any suggestions on how to further improve it before I submit it to the AfC process. I know it's not exactly COI-related, but I always appreciate any feedback I can get. Thanks!--FacultiesIntact (talk) 00:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@FacultiesIntact: I've placed feedback on your draft.  spintendo  18:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe Edit Request

I am a member of the Gideons (with my application being approved a few days ago); I was trying to imply that without blurting it out because I did not want a robot at headquarters (like places I've worked use to monitor comments on social media) to flag it as if I am requesting the edit on behalf of or as a representative of the organization. Being new to the organization, I didn't know if they would appreciate that. I am honestly flattered by your comments about my editing experience and level of respect on the encyclopedia project. I would feel comfortable removing the sentence per WP:BOLD if you don't think doing so would be controversial or seen a form of whitewashing because the edit I am proposing is more for the integrity of Wikipedia than anything else. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 02:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC) Responded at the appropriate venue.  spintendo  03:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Request edit Temple Grandin & Hormel

Hi Spintendo,

Thank you and apologies. The Hormel 10-year relationship with Temple Grandin error is mine. Can I hopefully mend with continued good faith? I had the Hormel link (that spells out the 10-year relationship) in one of two documents on my computer but did not paste it along with my signature.

Moving forward, is there any way to continue to work together? And possibly include a quote or Temple mention with an explanation of her 10-year relationship with Hormel?

Hello-Mary-H (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Please use the template on the article talk pages.  spintendo  23:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Hello-Mary-H: The easiest way to get the information into the article about Ms. Grandin is to find a source reporting on her visit to the Hormel facility. This source should not be industry-related in any way, and would best be a news report from a broadcast news or newspaper source, preferably one not residing in the same city as the facility — since those publications can be seen as beholden to the companies which largely employ the same people who constitute their viewers. If I were to place it now with scant sourcing, it would be easier to remove as being biased. With better sourcing, the claim would sit with a stronger foundation in the article. Regards,  spintendo  03:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Robert Thomson (executive)

An FYI I left you a note with a couple questions over at Talk:Robert Thomson (executive). Looking forward to your input when you have a moment. Thanks. NinaSpezz (talk) 14:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@NinaSpezz: Responded at the appropriate venue.  spintendo  02:12, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

An FYI I responded to your recent feedback at Talk:Robert Thomson (executive). NinaSpezz (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Cinereach article follow-ups

Hi Spintendo,

Thanks so much for your work and detailed explanations on the additions/subtractions I suggested on the talk page for the Cinereach Article.

Just a quick message to let you know that I took your notes and fixed a couple of the points accordingly, below the explanations you created. If you have time to revisit the talk page and check out my brief response with header "Response to reviewer decisions and feedback 21-JUN-2018," I'd be grateful! Otherwise, would you advise that I add an edit request tag to submit my changes to others in the editor community?

Many thanks again for your careful attention, --RevaGoldberg (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Responded at the appropriate venue.  spintendo  01:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Your handling of edit requests

I really hate to pursue this further, but your handling of Talk:David Cay Johnston#Inaccuracy on when I taught at Syracuse leads me to believe you are not taking sufficient care in reading edit requests. You initially templated the user with a statement that it is unclear what specific changes you'd like to be made, when their requested changes were crystal-clear. The issue was in fact that they had not provided a reliable source. If you must use a template, you should ensure it actually says what you mean. You then suggested that the user had not provided links for the second part of their request, when they clearly had, they had simply omitted the URI scheme (http://), causing the parser not to detect them as links (which I have since fixed). You would have noticed this if you had looked their request over in detail. Anyway, not meaning to pick a fight, just some things to think about. Wishing you nothing but good karma. :) TheDragonFire (talk) 09:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@TheDragonFire: Thank you for your feedback. The difficulties with this edit request were numerous:

1. Not indicating which references were to be used
2. Not providing clear links to the references they wanted to use
3. Giving less than clear directions about which text was to be changed
4. Making their requests from within a densely packed string of sentences saddled with unnecessary discourse and quotations (e.g., "I assume this is just a typo but would someone of the nice people who created and have updated this page please fix this." and "Nov 11, 1986 - It took five trials and almost seven years for Tony Cooks' nightmare to end, but Monday in a Compton courtroom, a jury found him innocent of a ... Long Ordeal of a Murder Suspect : Tony Cooks of Compton, a Victim of..." and "Nov 13, 1986 - On Monday, in a fifth trial, Cooks was acquitted, partly on the basis of new ... It's been almost seven years since Tony Cooks of Compton could ... Murder Suspect Will Go on Trial for Fifth Time : Guilt, Innocence to Be...")

When all of these distractions are factored in, the entire breadth of the edit request was indeed unclear as to what specific changes they wanted to be made. Perhaps they would take care to note for future reference the following:

• Quotations from the references are not needed. In fact, their inclusion in an edit request only confuses the situation, as it will be initially unclear to the reviewer whether or not this is text that the COI editor wishes to add to the article. They certainly didn't specify that these were merely quotations that no one had asked for.
• The citations that are to be placed in the article ought to be styled using the citation style of the article. If this had been done, the URLs would have been plain to see.
• If the problem is merely to change a date, then just say so. There does not need to be guesstimates provided about other editors making mistakes. Placing the dates to be changed in bolded text also helps. Indeed, an incorrectly listed date needing to be changed such as the one asked for in this edit request would count as the correction of a typographical error. These types of changes do not need the assistance of an edit request template, as they are considered to be uncontroversial edits that the COI editor may make themselves, per WP:COIU.  spintendo  09:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I think what I'm trying to say is that there are two types of edit request; those from corporate relations teams that are being paid to argue with us, and those from reasonable BLP subjects who are just trying to correct inaccuracies in what we are publishing about them. The former deserve being held to your above standards, whereas the latter are actually doing us a favour, and we should treat them as such. In fact, we refer users from various other help channels to the {{edit request}} system with the understanding that the request is waiting for an editor with an interest in the subject who will at least perform WP:BEFORE-style due diligence before declining. If there is community consensus that {{edit request}} is merely a procedural bureaucracy, then I will have to keep users on #wikipedia-en-help ^connect and OTRS (which is often heavily backlogged) in the future, where I can ensure quality of service. I'm not necessarily saying you are wrong, but I cannot safely refer users to {{edit request}} if I then have to micromanage how they are handled, because it creates nasty situations as above and nobody wins. TheDragonFire (talk) 11:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@TheDragonFire: It's been said that a well-asked question is already half of the way towards being answered, and so it would seem to be the same here, where a well asked COI edit request is already half of the way on its journey towards being implemented. While I agree that two main divisions of COI edit requester's exist, I would find disagreement with your statement that a conscientious COI editor's misshaped request is any less frustrating than a paid COI editor's abusive relisting. They are two sides of the same coin. As there is no Divine Right of editors here, the onus is on all of us to be responsible and considerate. By making requests with irrelevant, errant text as well as forgetting to insert the correct code to highlight URLs, the editor was being less than considerate in how they approached the edit request system — no matter how inadvertent this approach may have been — since the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I would hate to think that responses made here would alter how your side of the operation functions as far as suggestions made to editors, so instead of describing what didn't work with Mr. Johnston's request, perhaps it would be more illustrative here to counter-factually show what his request should have looked like:

 1.) Text to remove:  "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Morbi gravida libero nec velit."
 2.) Text to add:  "Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus."
 3.) Reference to use:  Juergens, Norbert (29 March 2013). "The Biological Underpinnings of Namib Desert Fairy Circles". Science. 339 (6127): 1618–1621. doi:10.1126/science.1222999. ISSN 0036-8075.
 4.) Reasons:  The previously placed text did not show adequately when the subject worked at the location. The replacement text gives this information much more succinctly.

Owing to the general Wikipedian population being less than-familiar with markup than most, this means that when it comes to edit requests, the weight of those received arrive to us placed in archaic, prose structured sentences (like Mr. Johston's) rather than being placed in a much-more efficient and accurate, table-standardized version shown above.  spintendo  01:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, there remains only one CN tag in the article that needs to be addressed. All of the other concerns noted by the COI editor in their request have been resolved. Again, thank you for your input!  spintendo  18:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Exact Sciences (company), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed

 spintendo  09:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Hidden category on Hormel WP

Hi spintendo,

Is there something I need to do in Talk for Hormel WP about a "hidden category"? I have 3 edit requests and it looks like they are in a hidden category. I can't figure out if and how to remedy this or if "hidden category" prevents editors like you from seeing these requests.

Thank you, Hello-Mary-H (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing hidden there, the text which was submitted as an edit request required additional information, so once it was deemed as "reviewed" it was placed under extended content and readied for archiving. The request should then be resubmitted along with the missing information under a new edit request template under a new heading, as you've done. If we were to continue working on the older, already-reviewed text, this would have unnecessarily held up the talk page's "flow". By placing the request under a new template, the entire conversation is easier to follow. Please note, your edit requests often make use of multiple templates in one setting. This is not needed, and only serves to clutter the page. In the future, please activate only one request template at a time. The template is versatile, and can cover many different subheadings of requests. FYI  spintendo  23:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Request to participate on DRN Notice for Bhanushali Talk Page

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic [1]. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Checkmate87 (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Responded at the appropriate venue. Thank you!  spintendo  23:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Jon Rose page

30 June 2018 OK, Spintendo, I’m back from the outback. Here is where we left off: is the new proposed lead OK? If so, can I make those changes? Can I just delete the text that I suggest and move the other to where I suggest in a simple cut-and-paste, or do I need more explanation from you? I don’t see our previous discussion on your page anymore—hopefully we can resume work on this.

Current: Jon Rose (19 February 1951) is an Australian violinist, composer, and improviser. He was born in England and began playing violin at age 7 after winning a music scholarship to King's School in Rochester.[1][1] He gave up formal tuition at the age of 15.[2] Since the 1970s, he has been at the sharp end of new, improvised, and experimental music and media.[3] He has created large environmental multimedia works, engaged with interactive electronic systems, built experimental music instruments, performed with numerous colleagues from the fields of new music and improvisation, created radiophonic works, and written cultural criticism, as well as improvised violin concertos with orchestra.[4] Central to his practice has been “The Relative Violin” project, a unique Gesamtkunstwerk (or total art form) manifesting in all-embracing, diverse outcomes on, with, and about the violin and string music more generally.[2] He has been described as ‘undoubtedly the most exploratory, imaginative and iconoclastic violin player who has lived in Australia.”[5] “Rose doesn't fit into any easily described categories - he does not swing, stomp or generate an ambient haze,” writes The Guardian critic John L. Walters, “but all his albums create a violin-shaped world that is all his own, shot through with wild humour.”[6]\

NEW: Jon Rose (19 February 1951) is an Australian violinist, composer, and improviser. He was born in England and began playing violin at age 7 after winning a music scholarship to King's School in Rochester.[1][1] Since the 1970s, he has been at the sharp end of new, improvised, and experimental music and media.[3] He has created large environmental multimedia works, engaged with interactive electronic systems, built experimental music instruments, performed with numerous colleagues from the fields of new music and improvisation, created radiophonic works, and written cultural criticism, as well as improvised violin concertos with orchestra.[4] “Rose doesn't fit into any easily described categories - he does not swing, stomp or generate an ambient haze,” writes The Guardian critic John L. Walters, “but all his albums create a violin-shaped world that is all his own, shot through with wild humour.”[6]

Summary of what I did on the Intro redo: I’m using Jon Rose’s colleague John Zorn’s Wiki entry as a model (and Frances-Marie Uitti). I tried making it go more in order of what the article does, but that just makes it longer. What about this: We cut this sentence entirely: He gave up formal tuition at the age of 15.[2] Then we move these 2 sentences to the beginning of the 2nd paragraph in the section Early career: Central to his practice has been “The Relative Violin” project, a unique Gesamtkunstwerk (or total art form) manifesting in all-embracing, diverse outcomes on, with, and about the violin and string music more generally.[2] He has been described as ‘undoubtedly the most exploratory, imaginative and iconoclastic violin player who has lived in Australia.”

Adding a jpeg/picture: I’m not finding where to upload it.

Adding urls: I added one book url. I don’t see any others that need it. All articles that are online do have a url; those that are not, don’t. Please let me know if there is something more to be done. And again, thanks for your assistance. hollistHollist (talk) 06:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Jon Rose discussion content from the talk page archive

Here is all the archived talk page discussions regarding the article. I moved a copy of them here for easier reference.  spintendo  18:26, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I moved that material back to the archive. It is not needed here. The proofreading draft is posted below.  spintendo  05:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Spintendo, just making sure that you saw my latest questions from 30 June. I'm not sure if I should post them on the Talk page of the Jon Rose page or on your page. Thanks, hollistHollist (talk) 03:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hollist: The proofreading draft with feedback is located here As it is a work in progress, please do not make any edits directly to that page until I have completed it. Thank you!  spintendo  22:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hollist:The proofreading of the draft is about 1/3 of the way completed. When I've finished adding feedback and comments, I will transfer the draft to one of your user subpages in order for you to be able to work on it. Let me know if you have any questions.  spintendo  05:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Name change - help pls

Hi Spintendo,

Just to draw your attention to changes on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barclays_Africa_Group. It's under name change, last entry on page at the moment.

Thanks so much! (Much pressure on our side with all these changes)

N

Nicola Mawson (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Responded at the appropriate venue.  spintendo  13:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Uncited-info removal on Lady Eleanor Holles School

In this edit, you removed a lot of material with the edit-summary "Unreferenced information removed." But lots of the content you removed does/did appear to have references. The very first paragraph you removed was about Good Schools Guide, and has a cite to goodschoolsguide.co.uk. Later you removed material about GCSE cited to best-schools.co.uk. Then later a whole section about expansion to China cited to gsa.uk.com. In many other places, there appear to be a bunch of sentences on a topic with a cite at the end of the paragraph, and you removed all/most except the final sentence. That is in keeping with the latter part of your edit-summary ("Every novel item of information added to the article must have reference notes immediately after the mention in the text, per WP:INTEGRITY.") but I think you are overly strict with "immediately" (a word that does not appear in that guideline)--"The distance between material and its source is a matter of editorial judgment". Spot-checking, it seems like some are clearly supported. WP:NOCITE, part of the same guideline, recommends using {{cn}} for specific details of concern. Please double-check that you did not accidentally remove cited content, or at least more clearly tag/explain specific concerns. DMacks (talk) 03:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@DMacks:WP:INTEGRITY states that references should be placed as close as possible to their mentions in the text. As you can see from this diff the passages of information I removed did not have references attached, and represented information for which no source could be easily inferred. Placing references at the end of a paragraph is simply not enough. The ref notes need to be directly placed in the text next to the passages which they reference. As for the alumni, it would seem that the need to have these names referenced in the first place should be the priority of the article over offering auxiliary descriptions of these individuals.  spintendo  04:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Here is an example from your edit:

The Independent Schools Inspectorate Integrated report in 2013 said "It aims to develop well-rounded individuals while striving for academic excellence," and later "Throughout the school, personal development is excellent, ", and "The curricular and extra-curricular provision is wide-ranging, demanding, enriching and inspiring."

Notes

References

That appears to be a sentence with a ref at the end. It's quite clear from the sentence and even the notes that it's all from the same ref. If on the other hand you think (and I agree) that this is a long run-on mess with lots of details, you appear to have done exactly what the guideline warns you against. You moved the ref from the very end to only the beginning, which is exactly the type of pitfall the guideline warns against. "John's report says A and B and C"(cite=John's report). Feel free to clone that cite to A and B even though it's only proximate to C, even though WP:CITEFOOT disagrees with this being necessary in such a direct case. The WP:CITETYPE guideline is explicit that a cite after a paragraph is acceptable if it supports the paragraph, and leads to the WP:REPCITE essay. DMacks (talk) 05:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@DMacks:The passage above was shortened because the purpose of the article's Notes section is not to act as a repository for quotes from prospectus reports (WP:NOTQUOTE WP:NOTMIRROR). Owing to your acceptance in this article of unreferenced claims, perhaps the passage above would be more acceptable to you if it were placed with no references, rather than the "miss-attributed" one I added. Whichever reference you think is appropriate to keep is fine with me.  spintendo  06:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both for this discussion. I had raised the question about the ISI notes on the talk page and am happy to see those go if that is the consensus (although a comment on the talk page would have been appreciated). On the wider point of the other deletions I have suggested a way forward on the article talk page for the history section and raised queries about the reasoning for some of the other deletions. If either of you care to respond there, it would be appreciated. Thanks. Rhanbury (talk) 07:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

Thank you for your help with requests and continued patience and wisdom. Hello-Mary-H (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Valamis Group Ltd. naming issue

Hello Spintendo,

Regarding your question about naming of Valamis Group Ltd.

- think it's my bad, main issue is that the main product name is "Valamis", it is a software, so I've used the legal name for this page. Technically, Valamis Group will work to differentiate pages in the future.

What can be done to fix this?

Technically there can be 2 pages in the future:

• Valamis Group (organization)
• Valamis (software)

-- Ivan.Andreev (talk) 09:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ivan.Andreev: For now there only needs to be one article. Determining which type of article that should be would ask the question: Which is referred to most in the cited sources on the subject, the software or the group? The answer to that should guide whether or not the article is altered. If its primarily a software, then the name can be changed and the infobox will need to be changed as well. Then the article would exist under the precepts of WP:NSOFT. If the article remains as a business, it would exist under the precepts of WP:NCORP. To some degree WP:PRODUCT can help to determine whether the article should be a product or a business (or both – roughly how it exists now). But be aware that while it may seem prudent to do nothing now because the issue is not really on the community's radar now, attempting to address the question earlier rather than later is best, because there is no guarantee that the question wont be forced on the article in the future, where it will have to decide which type of article it is in order to survive WP:AFD process, or other similar challenges to WP:N.  spintendo  00:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo, it's definitely article about the company. I was talking that approximately in the future, an article about the product can be created. -- Ivan.Andreev (talk) 07:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)