Talk:Aidon

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

??? 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

Energy

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy 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.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Finland

	Finland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Finland 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.FinlandWikipedia:WikiProject FinlandTemplate:WikiProject FinlandFinland
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

jjanhone (talk · contribs) has been paid by Aidon on their behalf. [1]

Paid contributions tag

A paid editor made contributions to this article, and has disclosed that fact on this page, therefore the {{paid contributions}} is a matter of fact and does not require discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Beyond My Ken not just about the factuality of {{paid contributions}}, but about the more general appropriateness of maintenance tags on this article – it's is ripe with buzzwords and promotional language to the point where it sounds like a rewritten press kit – to pick just one paragraph:

The product development was started by visiting electricity distribution companies and asking them what would be needed to get them to invest in a new kind of energy metering system and how could Aidon help them to create added value to their business. Already in the 1990s the first remotely read electricity meters had been manufactured, mainly to transform the traditional meter reading to digital. Aidon was however the first player to integrate functionalities for electricity grid management into a meter. This changed the market.[6]

It also has a rather dubious recognitions section. I think this will need a substantial rewrite before the tag is removed. Courtesy ping @Elli since they removed the tag. Blablubbs|talk 00:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a concrete example! Is this better: "The company started their product development by visiting electricity distribution companies and asking about their needs involving energy metering. The first remotely read electricity meters had came to market already in the 1990s. They were traditional meters which reading was transformed to digital. Aidon was the first company who integrated functionalities for electricity grid management into a meter which was changing the market." Jjanhone (talk) 10:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Blablubbs: the tag's description page says "if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning" - no discussion was started, so I removed the tag. That appears to no longer be an issue. If issues with the article were identified originally, I would not have removed the tag. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The instruction are wrong, in that the tag does not say that I am claiming there is a problem in the article's neutrality, the tag says that there may be a problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...this is why the tag is at TfD currently - we don't have disclaimers in articles. Cleanup templates, such as {{POV}}, {{original research}} or {{cleanup}}, are by design temporary. They point to deficiencies in the article that should be corrected promptly. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The tag is at TfD, and the last time I looked the discussion was running 25-9 to keep. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's now 38-13 to keep. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TfD is not a vote. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, but with both sides presenting valid policy-based arguments, it's unlikely to be closed against a large numerical advantage in the !vote. A finding of "no consensus" might be a result, but that would be awfully difficult to justify. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the TfD is not closed. The usage of this template here fully conforms to its intended usage. Even if the template was removed, {{Advert}} would be warranted. Other users already added some example justifying it. MarioGom (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elli, I had mostly pinged you had indicated in your edit summary that you had checked the article and thought it didn't have any POV issues and wanted to open a discussion because I disagree, but if it was just the lack of explicit explanation, that makes sense too. Best, Blablubbs|talk 01:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]