From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Scene7 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 28, 2009.


  • scratches head*

if wikipedia wants to do advertising... do it in little text boxes like google does on their search results, with 'paid content' at the top of the box.

but this half-underhanded secret stuff.... gross! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Decora (talkcontribs) 23:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

campaign contributions[edit]

apparently campaign contributions by boards of directors and CEOs are not considered 'encyclopedic'! i do apologize, for my impropriety.

but anyways... the guys mentioned in the article have given tens of thousands of dollars to republican and democratic candidates... Jeff Branman gave $5500 to the Comcast Political Action committee, which has given 5 million dollars to political candidates since the year 1997. rubenstein gave $1,000 to Randy Duke Cunningham (R, now in prison), and $2000 to Chuck Schumer (D), among others. again, not encyclopedic.

The cofounder of Adobe gave $100,000 to the democratic senatorial campaign committee in the year 2000. Other employees of Adobe have given tens of thousands of dollars to politicians since the year 2000. also not encyclopedic.

Damnit, I forgot to mention that David M Rubenstein has lobbied Congress to keep Private Equity firm bosses taxes at %15, by calling their income 'Carried interest' . [1] (also not belonging in an encylcopedia)

Decora (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Featured Article?[edit]

Nice bit of free publicity from Wikipedia there. Steve Graham (talk) 12:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

agreed. This is odd. Does wikipedia have any kind of relationship with this company? Feature articles shouldn't focus on a company! Bmackenty (talk) 15:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Quite so.. What on EARTH is this doing being todays Featured Article? Any illumination would be welcome. Sle (talk) 19:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
See Elderly Instruments. I'm not sure what makes this company noteworthy. Did it win an award for being sold the most number of times in 10 years?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Articles are considered Featured because of their quality, not because they're a company. Wikipedia has no association with this company that I am aware of (and they publish yearly reports of any large donations/budgetary contributions). To say "X cannot be a featured article because it is a company" would prevent us recognising any articles about companies that are of high quality. Ironholds (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Really weird main page article. Most of the time the article on the main page is notable, or at the least a bit of fun trivia. This however just seems to be "hey guys, there's this awesome company selling stuff you might want to buy!!!1!!!". I have no problems with it getting featured article status, but it being the main item on wikipedia that millions of people see when they log in? Pretty weird. -- Mystman666 (Talk) 15:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
What exactly is the "weird" thing about it? Do you feel it doesn't meet the criteria for Featured status? Ironholds (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Anything can be FA if it meets the requirements, but what makes this company noteworthy? I still can't tell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
It meets the notability criteria, as there are plenty of published third-party sources on it. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Could Ironholds and Dabomb87 please tell us if they have any connection to or interest in Scene7? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not, and I doubt that Ironholds does either. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


Who are their competitors —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It says it right in the first section: RichFX and CrossMedia Services. Gary King (talk) 04:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
This is incorrect. CrossMedia Services has been called ShopLocal for almost 5 years now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
ShopLocal is also not competing on at all the same level as actual dynamic imaging providers--they're providing a subset of that service only (e-catalog development), plus marketing. mec623 19:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mec623 (talkcontribs)

no discussion[edit]

Incredible. This article made it all the way to FA without any talk page discussion!?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The article went through a peer review, a good article nomination, and two featured article candidacies. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
And yet one measly comment on the page actually meant for discussing the article. Wow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Well I'm currently shepherding an article through FAC that is in the same situation, mainly because I am the only person who really worked on it. Ironholds (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
What article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Norman Birkett; just about every development from its previous 3kb article up to the current one has been by me. Ironholds (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


Lots of spelling errp\ors, i will start fixing them —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you give some examples? Gary King (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

How on Earth ?[edit]

This article appears to violate a whole number of cherished Wiki guidelines not least WP:NOT, WP:NPOV and Spam to name but a few. How can this get past the Featured Article Review ? Is this not the most obvious Conflict of Interest if ever there was one ?

How is this possible ? Help !

--Rbudegb (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe you mean Featured article candidates. Can you provide examples? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Providing Advertising Again[edit]

I would like to register my great concern that this article made it through the review process. For all its pretensions to being a factual article (and I assume that it is factually correct), what it really is is free advertising for the company. I thought that after the Elderly Instruments business last year we wouldn't see any more of these, but it seems I was wrong. This article is the kind of thing that makes me ashamed of Wikipedia. RomanSpa (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This article made it to the Wikipedia front page because it is a featured article, meaning that it was one of the best the encyclopedia to offer, not because it is advertising. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
and who, exactly decided that, and how did they come to the decision?Decora (talk) 00:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
The wikipedia community decided it at WP:FAC after a consensus had been reached... No one person determines the fate of a FA. Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 01:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Pare down this article?[edit]

I would like to edit this article down to a size commensurate to the importance of this company. I notice, for example, that this article about Scene7 is longer than the Wiki article about Scene7's parent company, Adobe Systems. There is much extraneous detail that could be cut. Does anyone object to this? Reading comments on this Talk page, it appears no one would object. I find it very odd that this article, which is tantamount to free advertising, remains in Wikipedia at this length and in this detail. Chisme (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Since there were no objections, I parred it down. To reiterate: Scene7 isn't the Ford Motor Company. It doesn't deserve an overly long article. Chisme (talk) 23:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted the changes because they need more discussion. Turning a featured article into a two-paragraph stub is a bold, probably over-bold, decision. I suggest you ask for more input on your proposed changes by inviting people to this talk page from the Wikiprojects listed above (a short message on the projects' talk pages would be best), so that a proper consensus can be built. BencherliteTalk 11:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The "discussion" is pretty clear above, where several editors complain that this article is far too long. Why does Scene7, a subsidiary of Adobe Systems, have an article nearly as long as that of its parent company? Do you agree that it needs cutting? Where would you start? There is so much fluff here no one bothers to read it. BTW, it doesn't matter that this is a "featured article." Because it was once "featured" doesn't mean it's sacrosanct. Chisme (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
You're right that there's nothing sacrosanct about featured status; if the article should be trimmed, then so be it. I'm not yet convinced that it should be trimmed, though. If the article is about the same length as the article on Adobe, perhaps that's because the Adobe article is too short. More generally, I don't think we should cut material because the topic seems not very important. If we have reliably sourced information then we need a specific reason to cut it. Is there anything in the article you think is unreliably sourced?
I should add that so far I've only skimmed the article; I'm open to being convinced that we should cut, so I'm not necessarily defending the article in its current state. I'd just like to see more specific arguments for deleting particular material. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I trimmed the history section. Way too much extraneous detail here. Chisme (talk) 23:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I've reverted -- I looked through the deleted material and it appears what was cut was sourced and relevant to the company's history. If you want to cut sourced material that has been reviewed by multiple other editors I think you need to make a specific case for the content being unnecessary. There's detail, yes, but this is not a remarkably long article. Why shouldn't there be detail?
As I said above, I'm willing to be convinced that material should be cut, but I would like to see specific arguments made about specific parts of the content. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
As others have said above, this article is WAY too long. I'm glad you're also convinced material should be cut. How should we cut? Last time, I cut out tedious descriptions of the machinations of CEO Doug Mack -- and you reversed them. Why don't you make some cuts? Show me what you would do instead of summarily reversing the edits I made. BTW, just because something is sourced doesn't mean it belongs in an article. For the next go round, I'd like you to make the cuts. If you can't take the time to make them, I will restore the edits I made. Chisme (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Read what Mike said again. He said that he is "willing to be convinced that material should be cut" - that means that you still have to convince him of this. It does not mean that he already agrees that material should be cut. Your starting point seems to be to assume that the article is too long because it is longer than Adobe's article. That may well be because Adobe's article hasn't been written to its true potential. The length of Adobe's article is irrelevant in determining what should go into this article, and what goes into the article depends on what has been written about the company in reliable and independent sources. Re-reading the comments above from 2009, the complaints are that it was effectively advertising for the company (particularly when it appeared on the main page as "Today's Featured Article"), not that the article was too long. None of those complaints were backed up with evidence drawn from the article. So at present, you appear to be the only one who thinks that radical surgery is necessary here for reasons of length. BencherliteTalk 18:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
"Willing to be convinced"? C'mon. Is Mike really in a position to be "willing to be convinced," like some grand poo-bah? The question here is: Is the importance of this company commensurate with the length of the article? And the answer to that question is clearly "no." The article's length is but one symptom of its reading like an advertisement; cutting it down, therefore, will make it less like an advertisement. It's not up to Mike or anyone else to yah or hay what I write and then revert it. It's not up to me to convince him. He can either make constructive cuts to this article or bow out. He's not the managing editor here. He's contributor. Chisme (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
We're all peers here, but we do need to have a consensus on changes, if we don't want edit wars. That's all I meant by "willing to be convinced"; currently, like Bencherlite, I don't see any need for cuts. It does seem you're the only one who thinks the article is too long, so if you want to build consensus, please make your case. I think the best way to do that is to get specific; pick a sentence or paragraph and say what's wrong with it. I am sceptical partly because your comments so far seem general, not specific. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The article is only 20kB, so it is clearly not too long, and material cannot be removed on that basis. See Wikipedia:Article size for guidance. DrKay (talk) 08:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)