Boston Dynamics is within the scope of WikiProject Robotics, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Robotics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page (Talk), where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
NPOV :Alabama Cooperative Extension System, written almost entirely by a news and public affairs employee at ACES, so needs some neutral eyes to give it a going-over to check for both neutrality, and layout/content inclusion, etc.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Google, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Google and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Please note that per WP:V and WP:RS the company's home page does not qualify as a reliable source for citations. You need to cite independent, third-party sources for the facts included in the article, as well as to show notability for its subject. -- Kesh 04:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
If you insist on refusing to read the relevant policies yourself, I take no responsibility when the article gets deleted again. However, for the sake of good faith, I'll elaborate:
The restriction in WP:RS is quite clear: Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight.
The company's web site would fall under the category of a self-published source per WP:V#SELF. Further, it is a primary source, which we are not supposed to use.
A simple fix is to find some reliable, third-party citations about the company and what it does. However, if you insist on only citing the web site itself, the article will likely get deleted again for failing to show notability and provide verifiability. -- Kesh 05:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
If their website says they were incorporated in some year, say 1992, thats still a secondary source. The primary source is the actual incorporation papers, or a listing of the incorporation in that states online database of incorporations. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
primary source "Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs." Sorry, I see no mention of corporate websites. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
WP:V#SELF "Self-published sources (online and paper): Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." Sorry, I see no mention of corporate websites. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessaryily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IINotifyOnline 13:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot IINotifyOnline 21:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)