Talk:Polaroid B.V.

I think there's at least one reliable reference (daily finance) to support this article - I will remove most of the offending text and reduce to a stub. Then it can be rewritten properly. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I've done my best with it, now I'll leave it to the admins to decide whether to delete this. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Promo
To my opinion, the paragraph about "The Polaroid Classic range" is promotional and should be removed. Unfortunately, the author of this section disagrees with that. So please, give your opinion. Night of the Big Wind talk  21:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi,Night of the Big Wind. I don't think the text I added is promotional; it is fully referenced from the source I provided (British Journal of Photography), which reports on an announced product range. Although I applaud what Impossible is doing, I have no affiliation with it or Polaroid and I'm just adding the reported information to the article. I think it's quite neutral, but if you wish to shorten it further (excluding complete removal), go ahead. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Even a sourced section can be promotional. It contains far too much detail, so a rewrite could be better. Full details can always be looked up in the source... Night of the Big Wind  talk  05:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I did remove some of the text last nigh, I hope you're happy with that. It probably looks worse because it's such a short article at the moment. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Reversion of my removal of unreferenced text, etc.
I removed a lot of unreferenced text, a list of products, and some unreleased product info, per WP:OR. @109.148.5.65: reverted this, and left me a nice little message. It would be good if they could discuss this here, and of course I'll check the reference they added. I'm going to clean the article up again if nothing is forthcoming. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Impossible Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120108050153/http://www.bjp-online.com:80/british-journal-of-photography/news/2135295/polaroid-impossible-release-stream-collectors-items to http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2135295/polaroid-impossible-release-stream-collectors-items
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130626081616/http://www.the-impossible-project.com/projects/exhibitions/firstflush to https://www.the-impossible-project.com/projects/exhibitions/firstflush

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

No need to list every variant of coloured frame
I don't think we should list each and every variant of coloured frame. That is too much detail. -Lopifalko (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. WP:NOTDIR. The page should not be a sales catalog. — Hazzzzzz12 (talk ) 06:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Would Round Frame fall into this, or is it worth adding? Deeku9184 (talk) 01:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Deeku9184


 * I would also include round frame, and have done in my removals. I would include anything that is ephemera, that isn't the core aspects of camera it is intended for, colour / B&W, ISO, etc -Lopifalko (talk) 08:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)