Jump to content

Talk:Foursquare City Guide

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Foursquare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COI edit requests

[edit]

Hi! Foursquare has hired me to request some updates to this page. The requests are primarily oriented around shifting this article's focus from the Foursquare app alone to the entirety of Foursquare Labs, Inc. I'm also suggesting that a lot of unsourced/non-notable material be removed.

I've mocked up all the edits in my sandbox here, and a mockup with all changes highlighted/struck through is here.

Here's a recap of the changes I'm suggesting:

Lead

[edit]
  1. FYI, I updated the logo to a more recent version.
  2. Overhauling the infobox from the infobox dotcom-company template (which redirects to the infobox website template) to the infobox company template. This involved removing some parameters and adding a few others. Sources for the new information are in my mockups.
  3. Updating the lead to reflect the revised body of the article. Notably, I removed a reference to the Foursquare app making recommendations based on users' purchases, which is inaccurate. I also moved some detail into the History section and deleted a paragraph that I think contained excessive detail.
  4. Adding synopsis of the company's recent history and newer enterprise products to reflect updated article body.

History

[edit]
  1. Placing the History section immediately after the lead, as is standard for most similar articles.
  2. Fleshing out the early history of the company and removing unsourced and/or extraneous information.
  3. Correcting detail around the Foursquare City Guide 8.0 and adding ref.
  4. Moving the "2012 redesign" subsection of the History section to the Features (now Consumer products) section, since it focuses primarily on the City Guide app's features.
  5. Renaming the "2017" subsection to "2015 to present" and adding details on newer enterprise products and other recent developments.

Consumer products

[edit]
  1. New section encompassing the "Features" and "Swarm" section as subsections, with the "Features" subsection renamed to "Foursquare City Guide."
  2. Deleting some excessive and/or unsourced detail (including the "Cross-site linking" subsection) and adding some refs.
  3. In the Foursquare City Guide subsection, combining several short sections into a bulleted list in a new "Features" subsection.
  4. Integrating some items from the "Other features" section into the "Foursquare City Guide" subsection, since the original article has "Features" and "Other features" sections, and if you ask me, that's a bit peculiar.
  5. Shortening the "Availability" section and making it part of the "Foursquare City Guide" subsection.
  6. Removing excessive detail from the "Superusers" section and adding some refs and context.
  7. Adding refs and detail to the "Former features" section and deleting some inaccurate information.
  8. Integrating the "Partnerships" section into the "Former features" subsection and deleting most of it – I considered it excessively detailed.
  9. Integrating "Specials" subsection of "Other features" into the "Former features" subsection, updating details, and removing extraneous, unsourced information.
  10. Adding "Marsbot" subsection.

Enterprise products

[edit]
  1. All-new section with subsections for newer enterprise products, organized in chronological order of release.

Other features

[edit]
  1. Moving two subsections from this, "Super Users" and "Specials", into the "Foursquare City Guide" subsection, as described above.
  2. Deleting the other four subsections entirely. The new "Places API" subsection covers the same ground as "Foursquare API" with more accurate details and better sources. "Foursquare for business" was barely sourced, and the new "Enterprise products" section covers the same ground better. "Brands" and "Cross-site linking" are, in my opinion, simply excessive detail, and don't have much in the way of sources.

Funding

[edit]
  1. Adding a little more detail and a few refs.

Awards

[edit]
  1. Renaming to "Recognition" – more accurate and hopefully a bit more neutral.
  2. Deleting a few less notable items and adding some more recent items.

Privacy

[edit]
  1. Minor capitalization and punctuation fixes.
  2. Adding a brief note on the privacy policy's evolution since 2012 (the last noted update currently in the article).

Due to my COI, I won't be editing the article directly. As always, I greatly appreciate any help or feedback. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thinker78: Hi! And thank you for taking the time to look at this request. I always hope for and welcome any discussion that stems from my COI edit requests; I don't think of them (especially extensive ones like this) as items to be rubber stamped one way or another. I've looked previously, and there aren't currently any active editors working on this article in any significant way, so I'm not sure whom I should engage here or whose toes I may be stepping on by putting forward this request. I'll go ahead and reach out to WikiProject Internet culture today, but let me know if there's anyone else you think I should include in the discussion. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your request was very thoughtful and very well written, but if you volunteer more time you would come to know tools or processes like Request for comment and get to know that a change of just a couple of words can cause a lot of controversy (see for example RfC on the word "myth" usage with the Genesis flood and Existence of the ark). Your request was controversial, given that you were basically requesting a new article; this article is about the app and you wanted it to focus on the company. Although it is just an information page, Wikipedia:Edit requests provides good pointers. To seek consensus, start a thread with the info you want to change, add or remove, and wait probably 48 hours for responses, if you don't get responses, then start a request for comment. To get deep into Wikipedia I recommend you participate in Articles for deletion discussions and develop a portfolio of articles to include in your watchlist to watch for edits and get involved in controversies about edits, so you get to know policies, guidelines and tools to use to defend your edits and opinions. Thinker78 (talk) 07:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Thinker78: Thanks for the reply! I've actually been an active COI editor for more than four years and posted requests on behalf of dozens of clients. (A full list is on my user page for disclosure purposes.) This is the first time I've been advised to turn a request into an RFC (and in fact, WP:ER doesn't mention RFCs). I have a sneaking suspicion many editors would bristle at COI editors taking their business to a general-purpose forum like that, but perhaps I am wrong—if you have seen otherwise, please do correct me and I'll start one. While I do watch dozens of articles and endeavor to be an active editor outside of my clients' interests, I actually make a specific point of avoiding engaging in any kind of controversial discussion since it would be easy for others to perceive me as having conflicts of interest beyond what I've disclosed. I have to be cautious to ensure that the reputation I've built here over nearly half a decade doesn't have any kind of aspersions cast on it. Still, I would say that I am fairly well-versed in Wikipedia policies and politics. I hope that clears things up! Mary Gaulke (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bristle? Actually the edit requests according to WP:ER have to be non-controversial and if they are controversial you are supposed to seek consensus first, precisely from a general forum and if you don't get replies you can start an RFC to seek more input and build a consensus. I mean in theory an editor can accept your controversial request but anyone can revert it for being controversial and they not agreeing with the change. I now understand why you don't want to be in edits controversies in other discussions. Some editors are very anti COI. I think Wikipedians should be able to make a living editing here. Thinker78 (talk) 23:46, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Thinker78: Thanks for your input! I'll start an RFC now. Mary Gaulke (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on COI edit requests

[edit]

Looking for feedback on a detailed COI proposal to update article to encompass Foursquare Labs as a whole and not just the Foursquare City Guide app. Mary Gaulke (talk) 03:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all! Foursquare has hired me to request some updates to this page, which I have done in detail above. Per the above discussion with Thinker78, I'm now inviting everyone to weigh in on these suggestions. Thanks for your time! Mary Gaulke (talk) 03:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was summoned here by a bot to take part in an RfC. But I see no debate, instead there's a list of 27 proposals for changing the article. Now I'm here, I'll give my comments on the article. It consists mostly of marketing hype, which ought to be deleted. Most (maybe all, I haven't checked) of the references are to sources based on press releases, and so not independent. Do we really have evidence that the subject is notable? Maproom (talk) 06:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hoping to address the weak points of the article, particularly the low-quality sources, and remove the more frivolous content. I know an RfC is unorthodox here but I was advised to start one due to the scope of the requests. I believe the volume of sources available on the topic of Foursquare over more than a decade speak to its notability, but that's for non-COI editors to decide. Thank you for weighing in! Mary Gaulke (talk) 16:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Thinker78: Hi! We're a week into this RfC now and there hasn't been much interest. Are you comfortable reviewing my original suggestions for the article at this stage? Do you have any ideas for other ways I can escalate? Thanks! Mary Gaulke (talk) 00:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose your request to focus the article in the company. My advice if you want to do that would be to request an article creation about the company, provided it meets notability guidelines. For trying to get more editors in this discussion or using other processes, please read Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Publicizing an RfC. You can also try contacting the Help desk and tell them you need help in getting your edits approved or contact an administrator to see if they can help. Thinker78 (talk) 06:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Thinker78: Thanks for your feedback. I had been thinking that down the line, a "Foursquare City Guide" (the name of the app) article would be split off from the main Foursquare article, but I suppose I could take the reverse approach and draft a new Foursquare article for approval while requesting that this article be renamed to "Foursquare City Guide". Does that make sense to you? Thank you again for being my sounding board here. Mary Gaulke (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The latter does make more sense to me. Thinker78 (talk) 06:26, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with changes (with caveats) (Summoned by the bot) Thank you for disclosing your COI. :) First, we should have a discussion on whether the focus of the article should change from the Foursquare app to the Foursquare company. I think it should, but preponderance of the article should be given to the original app. I think @MaryGaulke:'s proposal does, BTW. Pages for Google or Facebook are about the companies (not the websites) but the articles in both cases focus on the main website. However, their infoboxes do have company related info (such as revenue, heaquarters, number of users, etc.). Second, I have checked @MaryGaulke:'s sand-boxed article and there are some things the new version should avoid regarding the wording of the article. The article should always and keep in mind that Wikipedia is a place for people to get knowledge. I'll mention one example, it says: "[...] Foursquare [...] powers [...] products through a precise understanding of location" How is this informative? What does it mean to "power products". How is "a precise understanding of location" informative to the reader? What does that even mean? People come to Wikipedia to get an answer, and that answer should be in the first paragraph. "Fousquare is a company, it created an app, the app is a local search-and-discovery service." Notice how the previous sentence instantly delivers information to the reader (although crudely). Aside from that, and the deletion of information about number of users and the old "partnership" subsection I do think the new article reads much better, it provides a better picture of the subject. As long as all the uninformative bits are rewritten in a succinct form I do appreciate the changes. Lastly, RfCs are closed automatically after a given time-frame, not after it gets the attention of a given number of users. As such, your RfC will be resolved regardless of the amount of interest taken. Dryfee (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dryfee, could you provide an example of an article whose topic changed? I know about page moves and disambiguation but I haven't heard about changing the topic of an article like that. I am not acquainted with the app so I say that even if it was gone from the market the topic in my opinion should remain about the app, even if it refers to it in the past tense. The article was created for the app and so at this point I think that it should remain about the app; information about the company should be placed in a new article or in a section in this article. Regarding the rfc, the tag is removed by a bot after some time but this action can be delayed or undone.Thinker78 (talk) 06:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changes OK - BUT- not here - I think the best way of tackling this would be to create a Foursquare Labs article for the company info, and remove the company info from this article leaving it to cover just the app. It's big enough to be forked and it would make the subject of each article clearer. - X201 (talk) 07:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

updated COI edit requests

[edit]

Hi all. Per Dryfee's feedback, I've made several updates to the proposed article edits, mocked up in my sandbox here, and with all changes highlighted/struck through here. I know we couldn't reach a straightforward consensus on these edits previously, but hoping to make at least a little progress. The changes as I itemized them above are still roughly the same; I've simply made some updates to wording and level of detail in the interest of neutrality. Looking forward to any feedback on how to move things forward. Thank you. Mary Gaulke (talk) 03:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The changes you want are controversial and need consensus to be placed in the article, otherwise they are likely going to be reverted. I suggest making a new article about Foursquare (company). --Thinker78 (talk) 04:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COI proposal to split article into Foursquare City Guide and Foursquare (company)

[edit]

Hi everyone, coming out of previous discussions about the focus of this page, I'd like to propose splitting this article into two articles. This would involve shifting this article's focus solely to the Foursquare City Guide app, and creating a new article focused on Foursquare Labs, Inc., the company. I've created drafts of both:

@Thinker78, Maproom, Dryfee, and X201: Pinging you all here because you've previously been involved in discussions with me about the scope of this article.

Again, I have a COI and won't be making any edits directly. Thank you to anyone who takes the time to look at these proposals! Mary Gaulke (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will stop short of reviewing the drafts, as this topic is outside of my area of interest and became involved just for contributing to reduce the backlog of edit requests. Per WP:COI, you can submit your drafts to Articles for Creation (AfC). Thinker78 (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think a WP:SPLIT proposal may make more sense here than AfC, since I'm proposing this existing article be updated rather than created anew entirely, so I've started one. Thanks for chiming in! Mary Gaulke (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. @MaryGaulke: Thanks for bringing this to my attention. A split makes sense since Foursquare City Guide is just one of a number of products. Many other companies have separate articles for the company and its products. The draft company article seems ok. There are deletions in the modified city guide article that should remain. FunkyCanute (talk) 09:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkyCanute: Thanks for weighing in! I've publicized this request in several places and reached out to several users, and you're the only one who's responded. Would you be willing to work with me on implementing the changes? Happy to incorporate your feedback on my current drafts or do anything else I can to facilitate the process. Thanks again. Mary Gaulke (talk) 19:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update 26 January–Having trouble getting traction on this, so adding the request edit template. Thanks! Mary Gaulke (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding that the split proposal has already been made and while the discussion is technically still open, the result was leaning towards WP:NOCONSENSUS. The {{request edit}} template on the otherhand is for specific, actionable requests which do not require discussion to be implemented. My suggestion is that you redouble your efforts to notify editors using the suggestions listed under WP:PROSPLIT.  Spintendo  17:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, thanks Spintendo. Mary Gaulke (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks fine to me. Just remember to check the licensing of the images and add or correct the info about which page they are used on. If no discussion traction happens I support it being WP:BOLDed through. - X201 (talk) 08:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll give it a week and then proceed. Mary Gaulke (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Foursquare" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Foursquare. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — Newslinger talk 21:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

[edit]

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at UC Berkeley supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Foursquare_City_Guide&oldid=1207280786"