Talk:VideoWave
Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
 | This article was nominated for deletion on Date. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the VideoWave article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
 | It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Revert of 10:02, 1 February 2012 edit
editI believe this version contains a lot of text that is not notable (ie standard features for an HD-television), uses a lot of Bose jargon and is often written like an advertisement. Therefore I am reverting it. Discussion welcome! 1292simon (talk) 08:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please see your talk page. -- Phoenix (talk) 11:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Explaining technology is a good thing. For one I dont know why you decided to make a separate article just about this one product. Then you try to make it into a stub page. You remove features from the table and remove information explaining technology guilt into the system. If you believe it sounds like an ad then tag it as such. If you believe it should be reworded, then bring it here so we can work it out. I do not believe that we should get into this rut. Lets use the talk page like they should be used. -- Phoenix (talk) 07:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Televisions are a logical product category (previous page where is was connected with SoundBar was not a grouping that would make sense to the reader).
- At the moment there is only one product, but when Bose release other TV models in future, they can be added here.
- I have not tried "to make it into a stub page, I have trimmed it to include only notable content and I have shortened previously verbose explanations of technologies.
- WP policy prefers editors to actually make changes rather than just tag. This is what I am doing.1292simon (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yea true, but I didn't really see a need to have it be only one item on this page. Can you show me a policy that states that? I have been using wiki for years and while you can WP:BE BOLD, as you pointed out with WP:BRD it is a guideline and not a policy. And as WP:BOLD says, if you get reverted be Bold when using the talk page! So as I have stated countlessly I would rather we discussed these changes on the talk page. So please use the talk page instead of massive reverts. You have removed a lot of sourced information with as I see no real reason. I believe that there is no reason to reduce these articles to small stubs as your edits have been doing. -- Phoenix (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- I have been using this talk page to justify the changes, whereas you just give vague edit summaries to throw the baby out with the bathwater every time. Please specify which "sourced information" has been removed. As for the "stubs", do you believe "bigger equals better"? Well I think the concise articles which stick to notable aspects are actually more useful to the reader. The reason there is only one item on this page is because Bose have only produced one model of television so far. When future models are released, they can easily be added here. If you would like to discuss how the various Bose pages interrelate, I am happy to discuss. But I'm guessing what will actually happen is that, as usual, you will revert the whole edit with just a vague summary? Please prove me wrong! 1292simon (talk) 08:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- So you do massive edits to those articles changing almost everything on those articles. A user askes you to use the talk page before you make any changes to work things out and to get to the best solution citing WP:BRD as a guideline. You then revert any edits. He then them asking you to use the talk page multiple times again saying that they ate the best places to come to an agreement.... and you still only make comments on the talk page after you make massive changes.... Can we just use the talk pages... WITHOUT changing the articles? -- Phoenix (talk) 08:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, I have been the one who started the discussion on the Talk page, and where improvements have been identified I have added these to the article. As opposed to your behaviour, which just reverts old edits, thereby undoing discussed changes on the Talk page. I am not aware of any WP policy suggesting I shouldn't change the article until you have replied on the Talk page. 1292simon (talk) 23:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- So you do massive edits to those articles changing almost everything on those articles. A user askes you to use the talk page before you make any changes to work things out and to get to the best solution citing WP:BRD as a guideline. You then revert any edits. He then them asking you to use the talk page multiple times again saying that they ate the best places to come to an agreement.... and you still only make comments on the talk page after you make massive changes.... Can we just use the talk pages... WITHOUT changing the articles? -- Phoenix (talk) 08:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- I have been using this talk page to justify the changes, whereas you just give vague edit summaries to throw the baby out with the bathwater every time. Please specify which "sourced information" has been removed. As for the "stubs", do you believe "bigger equals better"? Well I think the concise articles which stick to notable aspects are actually more useful to the reader. The reason there is only one item on this page is because Bose have only produced one model of television so far. When future models are released, they can easily be added here. If you would like to discuss how the various Bose pages interrelate, I am happy to discuss. But I'm guessing what will actually happen is that, as usual, you will revert the whole edit with just a vague summary? Please prove me wrong! 1292simon (talk) 08:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yea true, but I didn't really see a need to have it be only one item on this page. Can you show me a policy that states that? I have been using wiki for years and while you can WP:BE BOLD, as you pointed out with WP:BRD it is a guideline and not a policy. And as WP:BOLD says, if you get reverted be Bold when using the talk page! So as I have stated countlessly I would rather we discussed these changes on the talk page. So please use the talk page instead of massive reverts. You have removed a lot of sourced information with as I see no real reason. I believe that there is no reason to reduce these articles to small stubs as your edits have been doing. -- Phoenix (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Explaining technology is a good thing. For one I dont know why you decided to make a separate article just about this one product. Then you try to make it into a stub page. You remove features from the table and remove information explaining technology guilt into the system. If you believe it sounds like an ad then tag it as such. If you believe it should be reworded, then bring it here so we can work it out. I do not believe that we should get into this rut. Lets use the talk page like they should be used. -- Phoenix (talk) 07:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Bose televisions. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120103203312/http://www.businessweek.com:80/the_thread/techbeat/archives/2010/09/bose_unveils_stereo_lcd_television.html to http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat/archives/2010/09/bose_unveils_stereo_lcd_television.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628230204/http://www.todayonline.com/Tech/EDC100929-0000267/Singapore-first-country-outside-the-US-to-get-Bose-VideoWave to http://www.todayonline.com/Tech/EDC100929-0000267/Singapore-first-country-outside-the-US-to-get-Bose-VideoWave
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120102001642/http://www.choice.com.au:80/reviews-and-tests/technology/home-entertainment/televisions/bose-videowave.aspx to http://www.choice.com.au/reviews-and-tests/technology/home-entertainment/televisions/bose-videowave.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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) 08:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)