Template talk:Telecommunications industry in the United Kingdom

Comments
Rangoon11 has not made the case for the inclusion of a "Suppliers" section in this template, has continually reinserted it without any attempt at discussing it. 2.120.88.81 (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Assuming that you are the same person, I replied to you here a few days ago here: User talk:2.122.108.56. I have yet to receive a reply. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree - please add your rational here and and get consensus before adding that. 2.122.64.186 (talk) 18:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The content was already there, you are seeking to delete pre-existing content and should explain you reasons properly. For the benefit of others I have copied below the message that I posted on one of your dynamic IP address talk pages a few days ago, and which you have yet to reply to:Rangoon11 (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, since you have referred me to Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle in respect of your repeated deletion of content from Template:Telecommunications in the United Kingdom, I thought it would be helpful to highlight a few of the contents of that article:


 * "BRD is best used by experienced wiki-editors.
 * BRD is not a process that you can require other editors to follow.
 * BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense.
 * BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once."


 * Having said that, I am very happy to discuss the template. In your edit summary you raised two separate issues: that there is 'No real rational for a suppliers section', and that 'for a number of the listed companies Telecoms is not core to the business'.


 * I have far more sympathy with the latter reason than the former (although it does not by itself justify the deletion of the entire section). This is a template about the telecommunications industry in the United Kingdom, and suppliers form an integral and inseperable part of that industry. If you disagree with this then please explain why because to me it seems a plain matter of fact and common sense.


 * I fully accept that there is considerable room for discussion about which companies are included in the section and am happy to have that discussion if you will identify which companies you do not feel should be included. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * On the basis that none of the information is incorrect, and that each of the suppliers listed are notable and do supply equipment and materials to the telecommunications industry (be that their main business or not) there is a valid rationale for the suppliers list. If that helps a consensus, you have my vote as a 'yes'. TomB123 (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The point you make about the information was already in existence is a red herring as you added it. I would be content to have a section on suppliers, however it has to be agreed what sort of suppliers should be included for example Pace is TV set top box manufacture, should UniRoss be include as they make batteries that are supplied with some Dect phones, it is far to open to editors own mind. I propose that for every supplier that is going to be included a high quality source should be found outside of here that identifies them as a Telecommunications supplier. 2.122.64.186 (talk) 08:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * OK I am happy to agree to the deletion of Pace, there are arguments in favour of its inclusion but I accept that it is in the 'gray area' and that there are good arguments for its exclusion as well. Do you have issues with any of the other companies currently in the section? Rangoon11 (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am happy for any of them to stay (including Pace), if a high quality source can be found outside of wikipedia, the company it's self or press releases that is linked to from this page that identifies them as a "Telecommunications supplier", I think that is reasonable requirement. 2.122.64.186 (talk) 13:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that to be a reasonable request. It is certainly unreasonable to require the very specific wording "Telecommunications supplier" to be used - for example ARM Holdings is described here: as a 'designer of semiconductors used in Apple Inc.’s iPhone', why should that not be sufficient? -  and it is also unreasonable to exclude the companies' own web sites and communications as sources for information about those companies' activities e.g.,  and . We are not establishing notability here - and all of the comapnies already have their own Wikipedia articles anyhow - we are merely trying to establish what the activities of the companies are.


 * Please can you therefore state which companies you specifically have an issue with being included so that we can move this discussion forwards. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It was not my intention to require that exact wording, so I think the link you provide for ARM is acceptable, as it is clear that others outside ARM and wikipedia accept that they are a "Telecommunications supplier" of some significance, as for the other links, I do think it is important that it is clear that others outside the company concerned feel that the company is a "Telecommunications supplier", otherwise it could be the marketing department just bigging up the company. To be clear here, the bar I think needs to be set high for what is included, ARM provides a significant product, for example another company printing the user guides for the iPhone should not be included, other wise this will just end up as a listing of every company that has a small connection to Telecommunications and adding no value. 2.122.64.186 (talk) 00:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * For the purposes of Wikipedia articles the web sites of companies are quite sufficient as sources for a variety of information about those companies, not least information about their core activities. Look at many, in fact most, articles on companies on Wikipedia and you will see this. Although a company is of course likely to try to present itself and its products or services in the best possible light, it is highly unlikely to place entirely erroneous information about the nature of its core activities on its own web site. This would be of no benefit to the companies concerned, and could also potentially place them in breach of various laws.


 * Both myself and another established editor are perfectly happy with the list of suppliers as is. Following reflection and in an effort to reach consensus I agreed to remove Pace as I accepted that it was potentially in a grey area. However I am not prepared to spend hours searching for third party references to uncontentious information that is easily available from companies' own web sites.


 * When I initially selected the list of companies for the suppliers section I was deliberately highly selective. Believe me, I would be the first one to contest frivolous or irrelevant additions to the section. I am very happy to debate the merits of the inclusion of individual companies on the list, but not to spend time on wholly unnecessary and unreasonable research to meet arbitrary hurdles which you have 'required' but are in no way general Wikipedia policy or practice. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply, especially the part about Wikipedia policies and practices, having done some looking at the Wikipedia policies, I came across the Verifiability Policy, it says "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source". It also says "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities" ... "so long as the material is not unduly self-serving" - I contest that firstly this is not "articles about themselves or their activities" as it is a template and claims that they are a telecommunications supplier can be seen as self-serving. The policy also says "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." so it is up to you as the editor who adds them to show that they are as (from the first line of the same page) "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." So by asking for a " a reliable published source" that is not self published would actually seem to be in line with the Verifiability Policy.  2.124.101.166 (talk) 14:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That is a clear misinterpretation of the verifiability policy. Information about the core activities of a company and the nature - not the quality, efficacy, reliability or value - of its main products and services is not 'unduly self-serving', it is in fact no more self-serving than a company providing information about its head office address or the name of its chief executive. It is a simple description of fact.


 * Some Common sense is desperately required here I think. If you will not engage in a discussion about particular companies and the merits for their inclusion in the section, then I will reinstate the section with the names as is. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not agree that there is a misinterpretation of the verifiability policy, it is clear that you are a pro-business editor and you have not, or are not willing to, justify your inclusion of the suppliers section and the companies listed in it, some of whom do not seem to meet the notability policy. So it is up to you as the "editor who adds or restores material" to show it does meet the policies, not me to show that it does not. 2.124.101.166 (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Your comment is counter-factual, since we have had a lengthy discussion, in which you have already accepted both the principle of a suppliers section, and the inclusion, at least, ARM Holdings, in that section. Again, I am happy to discuss the inclusion of individual companies, what I feel is unreasonable is your demand for third-party references stating uncontentious facts about the core activities of companies, when that infomation is readily available from the companies' own web sites.


 * It is also rather disappointing that you have resorted to broad-brush comments on my views rather than seeking to engage with the issue at hand constructively.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion
Since this discussion appears to have reached an impasse I propose seeking a third opinion: Third opinion. Comments invited on this idea. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why did you not seek one ? 2.124.101.166 (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I note that Rangoon11 has asked for a third opinion; in fact TomB123 has participated in the discussion (agreeing with Rangoon11) but at least I can provide a fourth. It seems entirely appropriate to add suppliers to this template. They are a significant part of the UK telecomms industry and their inclusion presents no greater problems than that of retailers and service providers, both of which groups are already in the template. It is not necessary to agree in advance which suppliers should be included or even how to judge which suppliers should be included. Wikipedia already has adequate comprehensive policies and guidance; the telecommunications industry in the United Kingdom is not a peculiar case requiring its own special rules. NebY (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I should note that I haven't yet made the formal request for a Third opinion, I've been intending to but hadn't yet managed to summon up sufficient enthusiasm. Following NebY's comments it is somewhat less needed though, as we now have three editors in favour of inclusion of the section, with the IP against (but who has ceased engaging in the debate constructively). Rangoon11 (talk) 12:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)