Talk:Subscription business model

Archives (Index)

2012 2013 2015 2020 2021 2022

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Leasing vehicles another example of paying subscriptions?

Is leasing vehicles another example of paying subscriptions? Gavin Moodie (talk) 08:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 25 April 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. (Second relists are generally disfavored WP:RMRELIST. In this instance, it would be a third relist.) (non-admin closure) SilverLocust (talk) 04:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

---

Subscription business model → Subscription – Clear WP:BROADCONCEPT and primary topic for the term. Subscription is already a redirect here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – MaterialWorks 16:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. Jerium (talk) 18:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. If we were writing a dictionary, you might be right. But for a encyclopaedia, "Subscription business model" is a much better article title because it encompasses both the subscription, and how organisations that operate subscription schemes do business. It can therefore hold information that would be irrelevant to an article focussed on the subscription itself.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting to get a clearer consensus. – MaterialWorks 16:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Support. I see little reason as to why the more complicated "subscription business model" title is better that "subscription." The lead section will need a minor edit after the change, but I see "subscription" as a term more people are familiar with. Additionally, the contents of the article would still match the new title. A move seems appropriate in this case for simplicity. aaronneallucas (talk) 05:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why the original research tag is still appropriate, three and a half years after it was originally placed on the article

Most of the article consists of statements that are not backed by citations. It reads as though someone wrote it based on their understanding of the subscription business model, and later on various editors added bits, sometimes giving citations for the bits they added. It needs to be improved by adding inline citations that support the statements made, and/or replacing statements made with statements based on reliable sources and giving citations to those sources.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Qute a lot of the statements in the 'subscriptions' and 'effects' sections can be found in the blog/article on blackcurve which might be a main missing source? I have added citations to this and and cut some of the text. However, there are problems with close paraphrasing. I think further text could be replaced or removed to avoid this CP problem and perhaps then the original research tag can then be reviewed ? Richarit (talk) 11:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

References