This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
business articles 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Economics 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.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Marketing 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.Marketing & AdvertisingWikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingTemplate:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingMarketing & Advertising articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to
systems and
systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Libraries 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.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries articles
"A pay-as-you-go subscription where you subscribe to purchase a product periodically."
Is this really the right terminology? I've only ever seen that phrase used for non-subscription services where payment is not automated. That's seemingly implied by the phrasing too, pay as you go. A subscription pays regardless of any going. If anything, that description seems to simply describe a straight subscription model of automatically paying for a product at regular intervals in an ongoing contract. Whereas the only use of pay-as-you-go I've ever seen, is as the name implies, paying only as your need arises (by depleting an allowance/quota) instead of by month or year. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
86.15.214.145 (
talk) 14:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Leasing vehicles another example of paying subscriptions?
Is leasing vehicles another example of paying subscriptions?
Gavin Moodie (
talk) 08:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Relisting comment: Relisting to get a clearer consensus. –
MaterialWorks 16:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Qute a lot of the statements in the 'subscriptions' and 'effects' sections can be found in the blog/article on blackcurve [1] 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)reply