Talk:Weblogs, Inc.

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

Blogging (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging articles

Companies Low‑importance

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

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance 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

The previous discussions on this page have been archived (Archive 1). If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Page cleared

Page has been cleared of resolved merge discussion to allow for new merge discussion Hackaday 22:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archived instead. --Interiot 22:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

I don't see why there even needs to be a discussion on the merge. Weblogs, Inc has a fully developed article, while Weblogs Inc has about 4 lines. I say we should redirect Weblogs Inc to Weblogs, Inc. Because it's apparent that this article (with the comma) is being taken very well care of. - Lightdarkness 05:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. No need to have two Weblogs, Inc. entries when there's only one way to correctly spell it: "Weblogs, Inc." - Conradq 10:20, 16 January (GMT)

I'm just gonna go ahead and do the redirect. The info cited in the other article is included in this one, and it's just rediculous that we havne't done it already :-) --Lightdarkness 17:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Weblogsinc.gif

Image:Weblogsinc.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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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) 03:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]