Talk:Polaroid B.V.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies

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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Photography

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography 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.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Impossible Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agreed. WP:NOTDIR. The page should not be a sales catalog. — Hazzzzzz12 (talk) 06:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Promo

Reversion of my removal of unreferenced text, etc.

External links modified

No need to list every variant of coloured frame