Jump to content

Talk:BT Group

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

Caption

[edit]

The caption states the obvious; a very similar example is used on WP:ASTONISHME. The readers do not need to be told that that is BT's logo since it is completely obvious. IWI (chat) 23:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Near identical example, taken directly from WP:ASTONISHME:
In the article CNN International:
CNN International
CNN International logo
CountryUnited States
Ownership
OwnerTurner Broadcasting System
History
LaunchedSeptember 1, 1985 (1985-09-01)
 Comment: No shit, Sherlock. (Turns out this is the logo for all CNN brands, not just CNN International – an example of the impulse to add the obvious leading, instead, to addition of the inaccurate.)

IWI (chat) 00:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel a vibe of page ownership from you, which has lead to this article not being neutral. IWI (chat) 10:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ImprovedWikiImprovment: You are aware that I have never edited the article? — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have rolled back several edits made by IWI. The reason for this is firstly that I can't find non-neutral point of view in the article, and secondly the caption for the logo is useful, imparting real information to the readers. I would suggest that there needs to be a consensus to change this. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:08, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have mistaken you for the person who originally undid my edit. IWI (chat) 14:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that might be the situation. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for the delayed response, I was offline. What Frayae said is what I would have said too. Also and again if it didn't say the latter, then yeah, but I don't see anything wrong with the caption as it stands and has been there on the article for years. Steven (Editor) (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Frayae:@Steven (Editor):Explain to me the point of having "for BT" in the caption, all it does is lengthens the caption. It's not like people don't know what the logo is for. Article ownership, which Steven (Editor) seems to heavily posses (more or less reverting any edit anyone does unless it's grammar) is not the way we edit. This doesn't need consensus, but because this is Steven's article, it looks like I'm going to need it. IWI (chat) 16:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1. Yes of course people know what the logo is. 2. I don't see anything wrong with "The current logo for BT, introduced in 2003." that has been on this article for years. 3. I don't own this article. I've made significant contributions, I don't "more or less reverting any edit anyone does unless it's grammar". I've also reverted vandalism and here's an example of something that you failed to see, an editor made a modification to the intro text which they said flows better, I ended up reverting that but restored it with a minor tweak as I like to ensure there is consistency between articles on Wikipedia. Please take some time to look at the edits I made on this article again, including reading its description and looking to see exactly what I did. 4. I've noticed you've been removing captions for many articles, some of which have been reverted. 5. Because there is a disagreement, that's why consensus is required. Steven (Editor) (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have been removing many captions that were unnecessary, nearly none have been reverted. Yours is one of only a few that have been reverted, and the only that remains reverted. (Except for a genuine mistake that I made) You say you want consistency but most company's articles don't have a caption to tell people "this is the logo for this company" since it is not needed. I you agree that people already know what the logo is then why not "The current logo, introduced in 2003" or better, no caption? The whole point of a caption (as listed in WP:CAP) is:
"A good caption clearly identifies the subject of the picture, without detailing the obvious; is succinct; establishes the picture's relevance to the article; provides context for the picture; draws the reader into the article."

I wouldn't personally consider including the year of introduction of the logo as providing context or providing relevance to the article at all and I'm sure any sane person would agree that "The current logo for BT" is stating the obvious. This is in the manual of style, so why are you in disagreement; not every picture needs a caption. IWI (chat) 20:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • As a public utility, BT's old logo will still be emblazoned on many thousands of equipment that were installed prior to 2003. It's very relevant to explain that this is the correct BT logo since 2003. BT has many subsidiaries with their own logos, so it is relevant to specify that it is the primary BT logo. I think the wording should stay as it is. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing my main point: the section "for BT" should be omitted as it is obvious; when I did this you approved. IWI (chat) 20:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I don't think your wording is better. I will propose some options.
  1. The current logo for BT, introduced in 2003.
  2. The current logo, introduced in 2003.
  3. BT Group logo since 2003.
As you can see, option #3 is shorter again and more specific. It is my prefered wording right now. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But we don't need to tell the reader that this is the BT logo, because no shit. The only useful information is "introduced in 2003". IWI (chat) 21:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then in situations where the logo doesn't appear like when printing the page in b/w, it will be confusing. It would also be odd if using a screenreader to have a random part of a sentence. The caption should be a complete sentence. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. BT Group logo since 2003.
  2. Logo introduced in 2003.
These could be options. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. 2 is the option. Per MOS:CAP and WP:ASTONISHME. IWI (chat) 21:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that’s not what he said. IWI (chat) 22:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you did there. Stick to the matter.IWI (chat) 22:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


  • (a) Contrary to what's said above, captions need not, and rarely are, complete sentences.
  • (b) To state that this is the logo "for BT" is to state the absurdly obvious.
  • (c) We don't "leave the wording as it is which it has been for the last few years and end this dilemma"; discussion continues until consensus is reached.
  • (d) I don't think the reader's understanding is enhanced by learning when in particular the latest logo was introduced, especially since it was 15 years ago -- if there'd been a recent change then supplying the year might prevent confusion -- but if people insist then "Logo introduced 2003" would be OK IMHO.

EEng 22:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • (edit conflict) (Kind of invited to the discussion through EEng's talk page) I am of the view that the caption should be something along the lines of:

Current logo; introduced 2003

Steven's point that the current version has been there for years doesn't isn't deal-breaking, lots of Wikipedia articles stay stagnant for years, and then bam, they're AfDed (terrible analogy, I know). Also, I would like to remind ImprovedWikiImprovment that WP:ASTONISH is just an essay, albeit a very popular one at that, an essay, still.
P. S. — Please ping if and when you reply to me; don't have this page on my watchlist.
Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 22:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SshibumXZ, EEng, and Steven (Editor): I agree. IWI (chat) 22:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's something wrong with EEng's talk page. I am happy with 'Current logo; introduced 2003' and hopefully we can all agree on this. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 22:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It’s going to upset the page’s “owner” but this does seem like consensus. IWI (chat) 22:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There you are again referring to me as the "owner" which I've clearly responded to you above regarding this. There is no article ownership on Wikipedia! Anyway, the logo is known as BT's 'connected world' logo. So the entire caption could be changed to: "BT's 'connected world' logo, introduced in 2003 to reflect its range of services and international reach." or simply "BT's 'connected world' logo, introduced in 2003." See 1. Steven (Editor) (talk) 23:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Steven (Editor), Frayae, SshibumXZ, and EEng:Yes I know there’s no article ownership, that’s the point. You’ve complicated it further and once again added the phrase “BT”, which we’ve already established is pointless. I think we should agree on consensus as said above because you are contradicting yourself; one minute you say “the caption is fine” the next “it needs “connected world””. Just because you’re a significant contributor to the page (which I respect), doesn’t give you ruling power to control the page (like ownership). Anyone can see it in the page history, a long list of unjustified reverts. Yes some are obviously justified but that’s distracting from the point. Do we have consensus? How many times do I have to show you policies, guidelines and examples before you understand?? IWI (chat) 23:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also in relation to what @SshibumXZ: said, the idea of not putting obvious things in captions is outlined in WP:CAP also. IWI (chat) 23:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha, I did say "could be changed to", heck I should have included "'Connected world' logo, introduced in 2003" to alleviate your 'BT' fuss. As you can see, I've introduced another idea for the caption. No, I'm not the owner of the article, there is no ownership or "ruling power" - did I say I have ruling power? (waiting for you to say this again on your next response)! What "unjustified reverts" (already said above, scroll up and read my response)? You like saying these things repeatedly don't you? Well, you've given me a link to your favourite WP:ASTONISHME and a quote from WP:CAP. IWI, you feeling alright? Steven (Editor) (talk) 00:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ImprovedWikiImprovment: thanks! It is all fine and dandy, but, I'd advise you to cite both WP:ASTONISHME and WP:CAP henceforth. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 00:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but
Current logo; introduced 2003
is just awful. The reader doesn't need to be told it's current; he will assume that unless told otherwise. And the semicolon is overprecious. :Just plain
Logo introduced 2003
is short and sweet. Or as mentioned before, no caption. EEng 00:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC) P.S. I'm the primary author of ASTONISHME.[reply]
What are your thoughts on 'Connected world' logo, introduced in 2003" per above? Steven (Editor) (talk) 00:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng: sorry, but, did you just assume the readers' gender? I am okay with both your suggestion of having a simpler caption and Steven (Editor)'s suggestion of adding 'connected' to caption. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 00:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oops repinging:— EEng. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 00:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Steven (Editor). Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 00:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I made no gender assumption. The connected concept should stay out of it. The purpose of the logo is to orient the reader, reassure him he's arrived at the right page, maybe add a bit of visual interest. It's heavyhanded and clunky, right there in the precious real estate the reader first lays eyes on, to thrust some hokey corporate branding concept like "connected world". It's cringeworthy.
I fear we are not well past the point of WP:BIKESHEDDING. EEng 02:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng: don't worry I wasn't accusing you of being a mysogynist (which you're), apparently [bad] sarcastic messages don't travel far through keyboards. Also, I am afraid the Interpretation Act 1978 passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom for primarily the Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom has superseded the Interpretation Act 1850, although the both of them make almost the same point regarding gender assumptions. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 05:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC); edited 15:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]
I would never dream that you were accusing me of being a mysogynist. I'll just add that mysogynist can beat up yoursogynist. EEng 05:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now on to things that are of importance to this article, yes I agree with you in that:

Logo introduced 2003

is the best caption possible for the article's infobox. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 05:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me, though I'll just mention in passing for the third time that no caption is better than the best caption. EEng 05:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SshibumXZ, EEng, and Frayae:Fine with me also; no caption would be better. Also let’s stop making personal comments, I have made my opinion clear on you Steven (Editor), we should stick to the discussion. IWI (chat) 07:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IWI, scroll up and read again. Steven (Editor) (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There doesn't have to be a caption. If there was a caption then BT Group logo since 2003 would be my preference. That said, the bikeshed essay is entirely appropriate and I think I will just let this rest however it ends up. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 08:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No caption is fine by me, too. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 15:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let's go with the latter.

Thank you; consensus reached so discussion closed. IWI (chat) 18:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as BT Group, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://web.archive.org/web/20100527143141/http://www.btplc.com/Thegroup/BTsHistory/History.htm, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:BT Group saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Banana19208 (talk) 07:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So this was the edit that introduced the offending copy. Fob.schools (talk) 09:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have a COI, as an employee, so can't do it myself - but it would be fab if someone could restore the article - minus the identified copyrighted text - rather than leaving this rather embarrassing state of affairs. I'm sure this page gets quite a few views. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: Thank you so much for taking the time to work through this! --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:26, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BT's complicity in clandestine GCHQ operations

[edit]

Among the many documents released during the Edward Snowden revelations of 2013 it was revealed that BT and other telecommunication companies had been cooperating with GCHQ by deploying clandestine monitoring outposts in Oman and Yemen, among other things. Shouldn't these be included under the controversies heading? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark63424 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

[edit]

I can't see why this couldn't be slimmed down and absorbed into the main BT Group article. The other current divisions no longer have articles and this one doesn't warrant a full article. Cloudbound (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other divisional articles still do exist to be fair - it’s just not been moved from BT Enterprise to BT Business (which itself has an article that represents the previous, and now defunct, BT Business division). Josh (talk) 09:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Can’t think of a good reason to keep these separate, especially when BT Enterprise, for example no longer exists. Adriazeri (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BT_Group&oldid=1255198899"