Talk:Lattice Semiconductor/Archives/2015

spam?
where are the facts?? the whole page looks much like Lattice spam to me :( 83.249.211.92 22:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

March 2 Update
Please review the following guidlines before adding too this article: WP:WWIN, WP:COI, and WP:MOS. Thank you. Aboutmovies 02:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

March 5 Update
If you continue to undo changes to the page, you will keep this page looking like a stub. Why stifle input so much? Take a look at the Altera page. It talks about their product lines. Take a look at the Xilinx page. It talks about their product lines. I guess Lattice cannot talk about their product lines, because you will delete everything? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.64.74.224 (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
 * The products have to be notable in their own right before talking/linking them makes sense. To put it another way, you should avoid external links to products and only have internal links.  Now if the product in question isn't notable enough to have it's own wiki article, chances are you shouldn't be talking about it.  Wikipedia is not Geocities.  Tomstdenis 11:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * To the anon IP person. No, Lattice cannot. Read WP:COI as to why, or Google search "Microsoft wikipedia" and read about companies trying to pay to have their entries edited. And most importantly read WP:WWIN. As to the arguement that other's do it, well that's not an arguement. That's an excuse. Just because everyone else is jumping off the bridge...See WP:WAX.
 * If there are problems with other article not conforming to the Wikipedia standards, then edit them. As to Tomstdenis above, no, the products do not need to be notable in their own right. The policy on notability is only applicable to freestanding articles. Still cannot link SPAM. You can mention that company ABC has the following product lines such as widget A, widget B, and sprocket C. For a good example see the Microsoft page as that is a Featured Article, meaning that is as good as they get. You will notice no link SPAM, and citations are used. Otherwise you have people with conflicts of interest such as Tom above here nominating competitor company articles for deletion, such as last month when this article was up for deletion. I hope that answers your questions, if not keep asking, and if you think I'm wrong, then find an admin. Aboutmovies 16:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Lattice isn't a competitor and I didn't find their original product listing all that notable. For an article to properly exist in wiki it must be notable, that means the content must support the idea that it is notable (e.g. talking about notable facts about the subject).  That a company that is notable makes sprocket C and widget A does contribute to the article.  It'd be like putting on the Microsoft article that the engineer who made the first HQ name is "Bob" and his son plays minor league baseball.  Yeah sure, it's related to msft [indirectly] but has nothing to do with supporting the notability of the host subject.  Likewise, we don't care to have a listing of all of Lattice's products.  It doesn't contribute to Wikipedia and is just spam.  However, if a given product were in its own right notable, it would likely be one of the causes of the host article subject to be notable, thereby being supporting information.  In short, facts should support the article's notability and encyclopedic nature, not just fill space.
 * As for your general cheapshot. I have yet to find my companies spam article.  I said I don't support us putting an article up because we're not notable enough, by the same token I don't support my competitors doing the opposite.  I should also point out that I merely nominated them for deletion.  I didn't actually pull the trigger.  It seems other people agreed with me.
 * I should also point out that I pulled my own vanity pages (which I didn't put up) because I thought they were abusive (non-notable, narrow pov, etc). So you can stop the "oh tom is just out to get people" bullcrap.  I don't support wikispam and where I see it I remove/afd it.  Tomstdenis 19:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI
Tom, did you ever take the time to read the above guideline? You work for a semi-conductor company, ergo, you should not be editing semi-conductor company articles. Period. Get a friend to take a look, but not you. And, you are right, your company is not a competitor of Lattice, it is a partner. Same rules apply. As to notability, can you show me where (policy wise) that wiki requires what you are saying? You see, we tend to cite policies/rules/guidelines, not opinions. As to your analogy about Bob the builder, it has no logic to it. It would work if we were talking about including construction company A (who built Company D's headquarters) into Company D's article. We are not talking about that. We are talking about products made by Lattice that can be included. We can't include MS Windows just because they use in the office (or Linux or MacOS), but if they make widget A, then it can go in. Kind of like Microsoft has all their products there. And not because other companies articles are like that, but that is the guideline. I will even be nice and paste it for you:
 * Recommendations for products and services
 * See also: Wikipedia:Notability#Dealing with non-notable topics
 * Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy. In that case, the discussion of the company's products and services should be broken out from the company article in summary style.


 * If the product or service is notable, it can be broken out into its own article. If it is not notable, it should not be broken out into its own article but should have whatever verifiable information about it that exists presented within an article that has a broader scope, such as an article that deals with all of the company's products and services.


 * If a non-notable product or service has been written about in its own article, be bold and rename, refactor, or merge the article into an article with a broader scope, such as the company's article, creating it if necessary.

So as hopefully you can clearly read, if the Widget A is notable, then it gets it's own article. If not, then back to the company's page. Please read the guidelines an policies so you can avoid wasting other editor's time like you have here, and in the AfDs you incorrectly nominated. Aboutmovies 22:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a place to compete. And I'm not trying to do so.  At least not through vandalism or non-notable content generation.  Wikipedia is not a place to exhaustively list every thing a company or person has done, nor list vendors, lobby groups, whatever.  It's not Geocities.  That Lattice is a player in the field makes them notable.  Listing all their products doesn't contribute to the article and comes off as spam.  Anyone looking to buy things from them should refer to their website not wikipedia.  As for the other company's article I AfD'ed, they were non-notable.  Others did agree, and ultimately someone else actually hit the button.  That we work in the same industry is not a conflict of interest.  Especially since I'm not putting up my own non-notable articles AND I'm not acting unilaterally about other articles.  There can't be a conflict of interest if other non-involved people agree and there is no double standard.
 * Frankly these discussions grow tiresome. Wikipedia is not a place to concern oneself with their corporate standing or whatever.  If you're worried your company isn't getting enough product coverage on Wikipedia, you obviously shouldn't be editing Wikipedia.  I don't tolerate articles about myself, my company, or others to be put up without good cause.  That's because I value what WP is tried to achieve and don't want to see it squander hosting rampant spam articles and content.  By your logic, the only people who should edit WP are people outside the field they are editing.  Well my friend, I work both in the semi-conductor and software fields (as well as math and cryptography).  So that basically cuts me off from a large number of fields if we want to go by your conflict of interest theory.  But fortunately, WP is a community activity and involves the concensus of others. Tomstdenis 02:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You still don't get it. You know why? Because you haven't read the WP:COI. You can, and everyone can edit articles in the fields they are involved in. Here are the limitations: "avoid editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with; avoid participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;" That comes from the page, so I don't know if you refuse to read, or just ignore. Either way it demonstrates your inability to join the wikigroup. So that's my theory, and that is because it is the Wikitheory. So my logic is you can't write about the organization you work for, their partners/subsidiaries, or the competitors in your field. You want to write about math, feel free to do so. In fact I encourage it. Same with cryptography. Just not companies or products in the semi-conductor industry. That should be simple enough.
 * As to not acting unilaterally, I'm not sure what policy you are quoting there. Again, quote policy/guidelines, not your opinion. The COI guideline does not in anyway say it's OK as long as everyone else agrees with your opinion. Plus, not everyone agreed with you, as it is obvious since your AfD nomination for this article failed miserably. It's the fastest decision to keep I've ever seen.
 * Next, nobody here said we should include vendors, and other than you, nobody is mentioning it. For the third time, products made by a company can go into the article. Again, not my opinion, wiki guidelines. Again, please read the guidelines. SPAM and link SPAM cannot go in. But, properly sourced and formatted information on products can go into the article.
 * Then, as to my company, I'm not sure what that means. I don't own any companies (other than small amounts of stock) nor work for any companies. Never worked for this company or any other in the industry. I am a student, paying a school money for a degree. You should really look into whom you are debating so you don't trip over yourself.
 * Next, we are not talking about articles for your company or you other than in the sense of the COI. Nobody cares, and it is not in any way relevant to the COI issue. Again, nowhere in the COI policy does it say it is OK to violate the COI guideline if you make sure your own company does not have an article. You are spinning your wheels here.
 * Lastly, I'm glad you brought up consensus. It is the hallmark of the community. (Look, I can do different formatting too, that makes a better argument). However, what you fail to comprehend is that all the policies/rules/guidelines I have been telling you about come from consensus. These are not my opinions, they are community's opinions. Aboutmovies 04:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lattice logo.gif
Image:Lattice logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)