Talk:Bose stereo speakers/Archive 1

Specifications ?
There aren't none ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.59.171 (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Notable?
Is this topic really notable enough for its own article? There are thousands of companies in the world that make "stereo speakers", can anyone prove why there should be an article that is specifically about one company's product line? IMO, this article is essentially a rambling advertisement for one (rather uninteresting) example of a product that has been produced by other companies in thousands of iterations. Following that, there is a long list of model numbers that mean nothing to anyone except Bose employees and Bose enthusiasts. For those of you that believe this article should not be deleted, please read WP:GNG and WP:NRVE and provide an argument for the subject's notability. Thanks. Snottywong (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I say not notable. You might want to add these other items to the deletion queue: Bose Acoustimass Home Entertainment Systems, Bose 3-2-1 Home Entertainment Systems, Bose digital music systems, Bose headphones, Previous Bose headphones, Bose computer speakers, Bose wave systems, Bose Lifestyle Home Entertainment Systems and Template:Bose. Binksternet (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. I've done a little bit of research and it appears many of these articles have been nominated for deletion in the past, but by some miracle they was no consensus on many of them.  I'm going to delete the prod tag, and instead nominate all of these Bose articles for AfD simultaneously. Snottywong (talk) 22:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Discuss here. Snottywong (talk) 22:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge Discussion - Bose Products
The result of the AfD discussion for these Bose Products articles was "No Consensus." Throughout the lengthy discussions of this AfD, it became apparent to me that these articles shouldn't necessarily be deleted, but instead they should be ridded of their non-encyclopedic content and then merged into a single article. I'd like to start a discussion here to find a consensus the following topics:
 * Should these articles be merged, or is there enough encyclopedic content to justify individual articles?
 * Which content is and is not encyclopedic, relevant, notable, verifiable, and appropriate per WP standards?
 * What is the best way to merge the relevant information together into a single article, and what should that article's name be?

I'll start three new sub-sections below. Please try to keep to the topic within each sub-section. Thanks! talk 23:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Should these articles be merged?

 * Merge. My opinion is that these individual product lines are not notable enough on their own to deserve separate articles.  The Wikipedia standards are clear.  Per WP:PRODUCT:


 * The article on Bose Corporation is not currently unwieldy, although I think a reasonable argument could be made that including a listing of notable products could potentially make it unwieldy. However, I believe it is very clear that it is not possible to establish true notability for every individual product line, to the extent that each product line requires a separate article.  Therefore, I believe we should follow the guidelines above and create "an article that deals with all of the company's products and services."    talk 23:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, content should be merged into Bose Corporation, deleting all but the notable products that are supported by secondary refs. No specs, no prices, no lists of model introduction dates. Binksternet (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes of course. There is a joke in there somewhere: "Is Bose equipment notable?" Bearian (talk) 02:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge: There are around 8 articles here (it would be helpful if merge nominators listed them clearly). Whilst there's some scope for merger between some of these (Is it useful to separate current and past products?) a total merge is too much. For at least some of these product groups, Wave and some headphones in particular, I understand them to include some notable Bose-specific technology that is distinctive from similar products by other manufacturers. That's enough to justify separate articles on at least those technology groups.


 * When the nominator canvasses on other sites, it would also be helpful if they could add links here to their off-wiki discussions. Thanks. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge of Bose computer speakers
 * Fairly long article for its content. This can't be merged elsewhere at any level beyond a para of "Bose make computer speakers". Although it wouldn't be unreasonable to merge this in principle, the practicalities are against it. If the nominator wants to get rid of this article, it ought to go through AfD on its own. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge of Bose headphones to any broader article
 * Bose have notable innovations for noise-cancelling applied to headphones. They also have a broad product range of headphones. This justifies the existence of this article. We can't cut it down without losing worthwhile content, we can't push the whole headphones content into a broader article without failing WP:UNDUE. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose merge of Previous Bose headphones to Bose headphones. There's some view that it would "make sense" to merge all the headphones together, but on closer inspection that would either break WP:UNDUE or would require deletion of the previous content that's currently here and referenced. Take it individually to AfD if you wish, because that "Delete this list of old products, because WP needs the bytes back" approach is the only one that makes any sense, or wouldn't leave us with unbalanced articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose merge of Bose wave systems. I don't know what a "Wave system" is, but for years I've seen Bose adverts tellimg me I need one in my life. An NPOV encyclopedia ought to be explaining to me what I want to know. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Andy, Wikipedia's guidelines for notability are clearly defined. In order for a subject to be notable, it must be the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources.
 * Reliable sources are "credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."
 * Independent means sources that are verifiably independent of Bose, who are creating their own original content and doing their own research. This means that articles that serve as advertisements of Bose products or are regurgitated Bose ads or press releases do not qualify as sources that establish notability.
 * So, if you are going to argue that each individual article should not be merged, then the burden of proof of notability is yours. Please provide three or four sources that establish notability (as defined above) for each article.  Please do not disrupt the discussion by copying and pasting a list of 200 google hits.  All we need is a few real sources that establish notability for each individual product line that has an article on Wikipedia.  If you can provide these sources and build a consensus that agrees that the sources are valid and establish notability, then these merging discussions will end.  Otherwise, the process of merging will begin shortly.   talk 11:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thankyou for explaining some basic WP Policy to me. I can't imagine how I'd never noticed that before.
 * If Bose wave systems are non-notable, then they should be deleted as such, not merged. That hypothesis is no reason at all to merge it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, you're wrong. WP:PRODUCT clearly encourages the merging of articles about products that cannot support an article on their own.    talk 19:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Actually, you're wrong." Now there's a helpful comment. In what way?
 * Now maybe we should merge the articles about individual products, except that they're already merged: these are almost all articles about whole lines of products, based on particular technologies. Policy doesn't call for these to be merged, and as pointed out down the page it would be like trying to merge Honda cars and Honda motorcycles.
 * Is there scope for merging the various narrower articles on home entertainment? Quite possibly. Is there potential for deleting "list of previous products"? Quite possibly. Yet you seem obsessed with deleting an article about their flagship technology instead, citing such bizarre reasons as the fact it's mentioned in a novel, and also claiming that I'm not entitled to vote(sic) in an AfD unless I've personally fixed it beforehand. All the while you seem ready to canvas on- and off- wiki, and to repeatedly delete sizable portions of these articles while they're under discussion. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Andy, you repeatedly misunderstand and/or distort my actions. In the previous AfD, Phoenix cited a random novel that has nothing to do with Bose as one of his sources that establish notability.  My comments in the AfD were designed to show how a random fictional novel does not establish notability.  And I never said you couldn't contribute to an AfD discussion if you hadn't personally been involved in the article.  I simply encouraged you to do the required research to come to an informed opinion, a problem which continues to this day.  I keep asking for sources that establish notability, but you're obviously too lazy to actually find one so instead you distort my words and talk about me instead of talking about the articles.  Let's focus on the articles from now on and leave our personal feelings out of it.    talk 22:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow I provided over 100 sources proving Notability of Bose products in the popular Zeitgeist from reviews to fakes and you love to focus on one mention that I have found in literature. Amazing :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 04:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I see that user:Snottywong has already deleted much of the content of these articles as a prejudicial act to influence discussion of their merger. I'll be undoing these deletions forthwith and taking it to AN/I (unless you'd prefer to card me for it yourself, and save me the trouble). Andy Dingley (talk) 12:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Deleting non-notable content does not require discussion here. Binksternet (talk) 13:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * When did it become acceptable to delete "non-notable" content from articles, or in the midst of a debate centred on that same content?
 * We have notability policies on articles, based on their topic. If you think that the article fails notability, there's a deletion process for that (which isn't just to make it go away and hope no-one sees it).
 * If the content is wrong or uncited, we have a way of dealing with that, which begins with tagging it so that others can see it and ends by deleting it (if still a problem)
 * Doing either of these within a deletion or merger discussion is wrong. It changes the starting point for people coming to the discussion and hoping to develop a consensus of how to act. There is no rush to act on these articles, we should decide first and then act afterwards, once we have a good direction in which to go in.
 * WP:BLP rightly contradicts much of this, because in that situation there are things that we want gone, and gone quickly. It doesn't apply here. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I simply deleted the content in these articles that was uncontroversially unencyclopedic, in order to demonstrate that these articles will easily be merged when their inappropriate content is removed. There is plenty of other content that I think is unencyclopedic but will wait to delete it until a consensus is built.  There is no discussion or consensus required to delete excessively long lists of long-forgotten product model numbers, and I'm pretty sure just about any admin would agree with me on that.  You're just demonstrating how hard-headed you are on this topic.  Think about it.  Look how hard you are fighting to save a 4-page list of discontinued model numbers from the 70's?  I think it's obvious that you just don't like me and will fight to oppose anything I propose.  Either that or you have a COI with Bose.  There is no other explanation about why you would revert my deletion of such obviously inappropriate content.    talk 19:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no content that's "uncontroversially unencyclopedic" when it's in the middle of 2 Afds and a merge debate. Even if the content is "objectively unencyclopedic", this is an action that looks far too much like bias for it to be a good idea, particularly when it's done by a deletion nominator. If content is to go (and I agree, plenty of it ought to), then there's time to do it after debate reaches a conclusion. For you to delete this repeatedly, even after reversion, shows that you're more interested in pushing your own agenda than you are in discussion with others. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Procedural Oppose Merge Untill Canvassing Violation Fixed Snottywong canvassed all of the !delete and !merge voters on the most recent AFD, but ignored the !keep voters. As such, I must oppose any merger on the basis of this inapropriate canvassing. Hipocrite (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done (not like we didnt' already have enough attention here).   talk 19:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * OMG Merge Wikipedia is not a shopping directory, and individual products are generally not notable. That said, if a specific item "was the first in the world to use gamma x-rays to transmit sound waves between apartment buildings", or something notable like that, then it would pass WP:N, and thus warrant a separate article.   ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 15:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose; to start, I don't believe joint consideration is appropriate for these articles, as the similarity between them is limited and notability is likely to differ in the same way that the notability of films produced by a given studio is likely to differ. A glance at some of them show some useful sources that demonstrate notability, e.g. the Bose 3-2-1 Home Entertainment Systems article includes links to two substantive CNET editorial reviews of items in the product family. The headphones article as well contains many sources that appear substantial. From an organizational perspective, I don't see a benefit to consolidating the articles. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support merge of Previous Bose headphones into Bose headphones. Oppose merging the rest for now. Previous Bose headphones is so blatantly a bad idea that I see no reason why we can't merge that one now. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 16:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What are your thoughts on WP:UNDUE? Whilst I agree your "blatantly a bad idea" comment, I'm finding it hard to see a change that makes things better, rather than worse? Might deletion of the previous list be best? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There's some information in Previous Bose headphones that can easily be removed, such as the overly detailed pricing information etc. The criticism section can also be trimmed to avoid duplicate information and stick to the reliably sourced stuff. There's no reason to delete it, a careful merge should be enough to avoid any WP:UNDUE problems. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

While it might be worth considering merging Previous Bose headphones into Bose headphones, article size should also be taken into consideration and if the merged material would justify splitting (<~35KB or more) than a merge would seem to be ill advised. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose If the primary subject of an article meets the notability guideline then there is little reason to merge it unless it can never be expanded further than a sub-stub. The articles I've glanced over at random seem to be larger than that so I feel merging would actually be a step backwards. I'd like to see more focus on product history in the individual articles for some of these products as well as that is something I'd personally like to read more about.


 * Oppose merge as the guideline says, if the particular product is notable, it should have an article, According to the GNG, quite probably many of the individual products are notable, for they have multiple RSs about them--published product reviews, as for all sorts of other products. They just need to be added.  As a preliminary measure, the groups of products should certainly be kept.  Wyvan's view above about removing pricing, etc., is correct--but that's a  much simpler matter.   Bwilkins, although individual products are not generally notable, some of them are. It's like saying that most people are not notable, so we should not have articles about any of them. A gross misunderstanding of the intent and wording of WP:PRODUCT.   DGG ( talk ) 17:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge - While it might be possible to consolidate a few of the Bose articles in a carefully laid out merge (headphones perhaps?), lumping them all together in one article would be like trying to write All cars, trucks, and motorbikes produced by Honda. -- B figura  (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * VERY strong oppose merge - So your first nomination at removing these pages from wikipedia failed, so you attempted another and it was speedily ignored, so you try another nomination to remove these pages??? Please Quit Gaming the system! You have previously agreed that "(I) have successfully established notability". The whole reason that there is a Bose headphones and a Previous Bose Headphones is because the article was over 32 kilobytes which it way too large and forces wikipedia to give the warning saying some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections. This is in keeping with Article size
 * Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose. If an article is significantly longer than that, it may benefit the reader to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries (see Wikipedia:Summary style). One rule of thumb is to begin to split an article into smaller articles after the readable prose reaches 10 pages when printed. Articles that cover particularly technical subjects should, in general, be shorter than articles on less technical subjects.
 * the total article size should be kept reasonably low, because there are many users that edit from low-speed connections. Connections to consider include dial-up connections, smartphones, and low-end broadband connections. The text on a 32 KB page takes about five seconds to load for editing on a dial-up connection, with accompanying images taking additional time, so pages significantly larger than this are not recommended.
 * Now this is the case for merging just two articles and you wish to merge all Bose articles? There is a reason that there are so many Apple articles on wikipedia. Just like Bose, there is just that much information about them. -- Phoenix (talk) 04:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Which content is not encyclopedic?

 * I believe that each of these articles has some encyclopedic content interspersed throughout the article. I don't think it's going to be easy to cut out sections of the article, but instead the best way I can think of to proceed is to come up with about a few concise paragraphs worth of notable information about each product line.  The paragraphs should cover what the product line is, when it was first developed, any awards it may have won, and whatever else is particularly notable about it.  The long lists of past model numbers are absolutely non-encyclopedic and should be completely deleted.  Price and warranty information should be similarly deleted.  Criticism sections should be deleted.  Information that is far too detailed should be deleted.  For instance, from Bose headphones: "The Bose On-Ear is similar to the Bose QuietComfort 3 Headphones, but without active noise cancellation. The cord is detachable; both 43 and 16-inch cords are available."  We simply do not need that level of detail about these products.   talk 00:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

What is the best way to merge these articles?

 * Looking for ideas on a name for the target article. Bose products, Bose product lines, List of Bose products, List of Bose product lines are all of the obvious ones that come to mind.   talk 00:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Any of the above are fine by me. Bearian (talk) 02:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the target article is Bose Corporation. Binksternet (talk) 03:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't much care for any of those List of Bose products as article names. We're not a catalogue, there's not a need for us to simply list products because someone happpens to make them. We should only cover notable products, or list them where their omission from amongst a range of notable products would otherwise create an inappropriate gap.
 * Bose products are notable, if at all, for a reason. This seems to be demonstrated by Wave, some of their headphones and maybe others. Those notable technologies warrant articles that are focussed on the technology that makes them notable, not just listing things by part number. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If we were to merge, we should merge by product category: i.e. all Bose headphones, all Bose Wave systems, all speakers. Anything merged further is inappropriate. I don;t see why we should be discussing the name for it, because we should not do it, in the first place. Possibly we might want to have such an article in addition to ones on the individual systems--but that is another matter entirely. We are not listing products because someone "happens" to make them. We are making articles for notable products for which there have been dozens, if not hundreds, of RS reviews and discussions. I find it extremely difficult to  assume good faith in this set of discussions, certainly not after today's nomination of Bose wave systems. The major product lines of major companies are always notable--because of the  third party sources for them. Is it being suggested that there is any one specific product line without reviews available? Which is it?    DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bose wave systems
An article that you have been involved in editing, Bose wave systems, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.

This is an attempt to clarify the position for at least one of these articles. Apparently it's "not notable", in whcih case our appropriate action is to delete it. Merging would give either a poor article on a notable topic, or inappropriate non-notable content on a non-notable topic. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "Apparently " seems to be  prejudging the issue, because if there are product reviews for them, they are notable.    DGG ( talk ) 17:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This AfD was a terrible idea and procedurally incorrect. Even if the AfD gets a "Keep" result, it doesn't prove anything, nor does it preclude us from merging the article into a parent article.  I could set up an AfD on Previous Bose Headphones right now and get a clear "Delete" or "Merge" vote, but what would that prove or accomplish?  Nothing.  I think the best thing to do would be to create a sandbox article that merges all of the encyclopedic content in these articles, and then comment on that proposed merged article.  That would be a constructive way to proceed.  I will start a proposed merged Bose Products page on my User page and we can all see what it would look like, hopefully later tonight.    talk 19:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced Material
I have placed "citation needed" tags on all unsourced material that I am challenging. If references cannot be produced for this material in a reasonable amount of time, I will delete this material. Thanks. talk 12:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Why do you persist in acting in such a self-centred and tendentious manner, with provocative deletions that act only to annoy other editors (how many times have you re-deleted already?) and do nothing to encourage any agreeable progress forwards? You're hurting your own case here. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: this edit, you might find WP:Disruptive editing relevant, in particular:
 * Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified fact tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable.
 * Andy Dingley (talk) 13:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Andy, that quote is actually not relevant, because it pertains to content that is already properly sourced. If you can show me content that I've tagged that is already properly sourced, I will gladly remove tags.  Thanks.    talk 14:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And I have only reverted once. There are other people who agree with me who are reverting your edits as well.  It shouldn't be hard to find reliable sources for this material in a reasonable amount of time, since according to you and Phoenix the list of reliable sources is nearly endless.    talk 14:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There are some problems with what you have tagged.
 * You really want us to cite that Bose has been a manufacture of stereo speakers since the late 60's and has a wide range of stereo speakers??? Really???
 * There is already a source provided for the Timeline. List of stereo speakers (powered by a receiver) from Bose: If you wish to go through every manual provided like I did, go right ahead.
 * Consumers Digest does not release their Best Buy information on the Internet. It was originally on the Bose website. It can only be cited by book or by archive.org.
 * Bose talks a lot about the 901's as found in its own history page. So are the failed 2201's
 * Another researched account on Bose can be found on answers.com referencing the sources below:
 * Amemeson, Jane, 'Sound Is Golden for Dr. Bose,' Compass Readings, February 1991.
 * Beam, Alex, 'Bose's High-Decibel Litigation,' Boston Globe, May 14, 1999, p. C1.
 * Bradley, Peter, 'Global Sourcing Takes Split-Second,' Purchasing, July 20, 1989, pp. 53-58.
 * Bulkeley, William M., 'Sound Program Lets User Mimic Site's Acoustics,' Wall Street Journal, October 19, 1994, p. B1.
 * DeJong, Jennifer, 'Redesigning Design,' Computerworld, November 22, 1993, pp. 87-90.
 * Donker, Peter P., 'Bose Corp. Unveils Its Latest Wave: New Corporate Center Dedicated,' Worcester (Mass.) Telegram and Gazette, September 13, 1997, p. B8.
 * Esposito, Andi, 'Shift of Base Business Fuels Manufacturing Move,' Worcester (Mass.) Sunday Telegram, September 1, 1996, p. E1.
 * Fox, Barry, 'Antisound Makes It All Quiet on the Western Front,' New Scientist, December 5, 1992, p. 20.
 * Greenblatt, Sherwin, 'Continuous Improvement in Supply Chain Management,' Chief Executive, June 1993, pp. 40-43.
 * Hirsch, Julian, 'Bose Lifestyle 12 Home Theater System,' Stereo Review, March 1995, pp. 34-38.
 * 'Hotels Move to a New Beat' Lodging Hospitality, April 1994, p. 84.
 * La Franco, Robert, 'Loudspeaker Envy,' Forbes, August 9, 1999, p. 68.
 * Lander, Kathleen, ' HPR Interview: Amar Bose,' HPR: High Performance Review, June 2, 1994, pp. 51-53.
 * McClenahen, John S., 'So Long, Salespeople,' Industry Week, February 18, 1991, pp. 48-51.
 * O'Connor, Leo, 'Putting a Lid on Noise Pollution,' Mechanical Engineering, June 1991, pp. 46-51.
 * Radding, Alan, 'Quality Is Job #1,' Datamation, October 1, 1992, pp. 98-100.
 * Reed, J.D., 'Beating Japan Loud and Clear,' Fortune, October 26, 1987, pp. 65-72.
 * Rosenbloom, Bert, 'Motivating Your International Channel Partners,' Business Horizons, March/April 1990, pp. 53-57.
 * 'Taking Control of Noise,' Occupational Hazards, July 1993, p. 34.
 * Vannan, Thomas, 'Of Science and Stereos,' New England Business, January 1990, p. 80.
 * Vasilash, Gary, 'Bose Manufacturing Audiophiles Extraordinaire,' Production, September 1993, pp. 64-67.
 * 'Vox Populi,' Economist, January 15, 2000, p. 71.
 * Wallack, Todd, 'It's a Sound Strategy: Bose Knows Investment in Research Pays Off,' Boston Herald, June 21, 1999, p. 27.
 * but there are others on the net saying the same
 * I dont know what you gripe is over these articles. Can you do some research and help instead of trying to dismantle them? -- Phoenix (talk) 14:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Phoenix, add the references into the article instead of posting long lists of links on the talk page that no one is ever going to look at. References need to be correlated with the passages in the article to which they refer.  Otherwise it's impossible for me to know which part of the article you're trying to cite with which link.  I'll remove the "citation needed" tag from the intro sentence, as I agree that is a bit unnecessary.    talk 15:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Done... but are you going to ever do any constructive edits on these pages? -- Phoenix (talk) 02:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Couple of hundred mainspace edits, tops - Snottywong doesn't do content. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, not that it has any bearing on this discussion, but I am the creator and main contributor to CobraNet, which is a former-GA article and is currently under re-nomination for GA. And, I am the creator and primary contributor to Constant voltage speaker systems.  You can't even find valid sources for your personal attacks on me, can you?    talk 11:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So you're claiming WP:OWN as yet another of the consensus policies that just don't apply to you?
 * Your edit history is that you have a few hundred mainspace edits. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What?! I never claimed ownership of anything, and I'm not currently trying to build consensus, I'm mainly trying to defend myself against your personal attacks.  I don't claim to own any article.  Both of the articles mentioned above were contributed to by multiple users, although I was the original creator of the articles, and I contributed the majority of the content.  That's all.  I don't claim to be some kind of "Wikipedia master of the universe" super-editor or anything, but I have contributed substantially to articles and I resent your implication above that I "don't do content."  I think you've gone too far with your baseless allegations and twisting of words.  If there's anyone who should be reported to AN/I, it's you, and if your personal attacks continue, I will.  Let's get back to discussing this article instead of trying to tear me down personally.    talk 12:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Deleting unsuitable material from an article is constructive. Binksternet (talk) 13:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Are product listings, and old product listings, encyclopedic?
Let's assume for the moment that this is all referenceable, and that the product lines are agreed to be notable and deserving of individual articles.


 * Is it within the encyclopedic remit of Wikipedia to maintain lists of old products?


 * These products (we assume) were notable for at least one moment, as "Bose's main headphone product" etc. Is this notability persistent, such that we should retain their coverage after they've been superseded? This isn't contradicted by any hypothetical case of "The first headphone powered by gamma rays" or whatever, that could be assumed notable on its own separate grounds.


 * Some of these lists contain little more than product name and date. Is this adequate to justify the content's inclusion in WP? I'm thinking of Bose stereo speakers here, as Previous Bose headphones and Bose computer speakers do indeed include reasonable depth of coverage, sufficient to dispel this concern.


 * If a list is only a bare list, should it be left, deleted forthwith, or allowed to be expanded as per the more detailed lists? Is there a review timescale for this? (Which is generally A Very Bad Idea for volunteer efforts such as WP. We're not paid to do this.)

These two points seem to represent much of the core of most editors' problems with these articles, so can we achieve any agreement on that much, in the abstract? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't have enough interest in these lists to have written them myself, but nor do I WP:IDONTLIKEIT enough to seek to remove them. There isn't a byte shortage on the wikiservers to force us to "make room". Andy Dingley (talk) 12:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Its very common in wikipedia. This is a sourced list taken from the actual user manuals. But you can just google "List of" and you will see that there are almost 4 million articles just dedicated to lists. List of Latin phrases (full) List of Toyota engines List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" List of Nikon compatible lenses with integrated autofocus-motor List of Sony trademarks List of HTTP status codes List of British words not widely used in the United States List of power outages List of Intel Atom microprocessors. Now these are articles just about lists. This page does have other information and should be flushed out more. I just cant believe that these pages are getting so much attention and no one is trying to do research and expand them out some more. -- Phoenix (talk) 13:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete it. WP is an encyclopedia.  Just because the WP servers have plenty of available space is not a reason to include unnecessary content.  Phoenix's logic is also flawed (and is the definition of WP:OSE).  This article is not List of Bose stereo speakers, it is Bose stereo speakers, so your comparisons are not valid.  List articles are list articles, regular articles are regular articles.  Long lists of non-valuable and non-notable information absolutely do not belong in WP articles.  Show me a regular (non-list) article that is GA or better that has a list similar to the one on this page.   talk 14:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * So your criteria for content on wikipedia is if it is WP:GA status or not... Well then wikipedia will have only 11,822 articles here... what a pity, 3,072,702 articles would be deleted by your standards...  . This article is not at a GA status yet and should be allowed to develop into one if people put as much time and energy debating this page it would already be well on its way. So get off your tuckus and help this page gain its FA status :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Phoenix, that's exactly what I'm trying to do. Let's assume that there aren't any non-list GA articles with lists similar to this article (there aren't).  So, what's one thing we can do to get this article closer to GA?  How about remove these lists that are so obviously, unequivocally, and uncontroversially inappropriate and non-notable?  How can we even be arguing about this?  Is there someone out there that truly thinks these lists are so truly important and appropriate to WP that they need to revert my edits without discussing them first?  Really?!?! I'm about to give up on these articles, because it is impossible to get anything done with people who can't distinguish between clear WP policies and their own personal desires to keep these articles as is.    talk 15:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * So we just have to delete these lists and the articles will magically jump to GA status? Wow! If only we could all share your clarity of vision. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's exactly what I said, Andy... *sarcasm* You have a remarkable ability for twisting people's words.  I believe my quote above says "So, what's  one thing  we can do to get this article  closer  to GA?"  Yes, I can see how you would take that statement to mean that deleting the lists will cause the article to magically jump to GA status.  You're being remarkably unhelpful and distracting to the process.  I spend all of my time correcting the false conclusions you draw from my statements, and it's getting old fast.    talk 18:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There's another obvious alternative: expanding the list with information to flesh them out into full sections. More detail about each of these models seems warranted if it can be sourced reliably - e.g. third-party reviews, sales figures, etc. All useful information for our readers in understanding the evolution of this line of products. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Timeline section
Since the timeline section is essentially just a selective copy/paste from here, I propose that we delete the timeline section and add a link in the "See Also" or "External Links" section. That way, users can find this information if they want to (along with all of the user manuals for these products), but we're not clogging up the article with a gigantic list of model numbers. Anyone oppose (he asked, knowingly)? talk 11:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As there were no comments to this suggestion for 3 days, I assume no one has any opposition. I have completed this edit.     talk 01:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I just thought that this was a silly suggestion and thought that it was over. Your suggestion was true iPod models would only be referenced to apple via http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1353 but we dont, its all over the place List of iPod models IPod Classic IPod IPod. This listing is not by model as in the manual listings but by chronological order. -- Phoenix (talk) 06:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Like we disussed earlier, this article is not List of Bose stereo speakers. Wikipedia is not a directory.  Wikipedia is not "a complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject."  If you revert my edits again without providing a proper justification for why this list is so critical to this article (which is not based on WP:OSE, which seems to be your favorite crutch), then I will seek mediation and/or arbitration for this article.    talk 23:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that you do not wish to actually work on any articles. After all, you only intend on deleting articles... which you did not succeed at doing... twice in one day I might add. If you wish to be productive and actually work on the articles let me know. -- Phoenix (talk) 04:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your simplistic reversion here removed my work at fixing the incorrect use of dashes when endashes were indicated. Your edit also brought the incorrect "60's" back in with its grocer's apostrophe. This is what you count as actually working on the article? Binksternet (talk) 05:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Some edits do get missed. I am sorry if your work was removed, I can assure you that it was unintentional. It has now been restored. Thanks for the heads up :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 06:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Phoenix, you may be the primary contributor to this article, but that doesn't mean you own it. The opinion of multiple editors here is that the timeline section is unencyclopedic.  You have reverted 2 different editors who deleted the section and appropriately replaced it with a link.  Please discuss the topic here and gain a consensus before restoring the timeline section.     talk 12:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Snottywong, you may be the primary advocate of deleting this article, but that doesn't mean you own it. The opinion of multiple editors here is that the timeline section is encyclopedic.  You have reverted 2 different editors who restored this section without consensus.  Please discuss the topic here and gain a consensus before deleting the timeline, or any other section. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I announced my intentions above and let them sit there for 3 days with no comments from anyone. You had 72 hours to respond to my suggestion, yet somehow you were able to find and undo my edit within 5 hours.  You're now officially edit warring and not even discussing it on the talk page.  It's obvious that Phoenix will do anything to save the content that he personally created copied and pasted from the Bose website (referring to the Timeline section).  I'm trying to be courteous here.  I gave you 3 days notice before making an edit.  All you two do is undo my edits and then not respond to my discussion of why I made the edit in the first place.  I know you think you can just keep up this behavior and eventually people will get bored and frustrated and leave "your content" alone, but that's not the way it works.    talk 12:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[unindent] Snottywong, you know very well that there is nothing resembling any sort of consensus for you to delete these sections, and you don't need to be reminded of it on a per-edit basis beforehand. I know you desperately want to delete as much of these articles as you can (your persistence is impressive, if little else) but please don't treat us as fools.

There appears to be no consensus for making such a significant change here. At least two editors clearly favour deletion, at least two favour keeping it. That's not a consensus for changing it dramatically, so we shouldn't make such a change. You might not like that, but nor do you have the right to ignore it. This is after all a collaborative project. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you really think that I have been doing nothing? You know that I do have a real life outside of Wikipedia with a job and family that takes up quite a lot of time. Life cannot beholden to your schedule. Even so I have spent quite a while editing and I have only recently posted what you see below. This is NOT finished and requires more additions and tweaking. Now please be helpful and edit this page by bringing more data and research to this page or be exposed as a Troll that has no interest in anything but creating headaches and wasting time for all involved. -- Phoenix (talk) 13:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

 Some names have been abbreviated and at times full names have been shortened to save space ("AM" = Acoustimass; "AMP" = Acoustimass powered; "P AM3" = Powered Acoustimass 3 & "FS 360P" = FreeSpace 360P) Sources: Bose owners guides


 * Well done that Phoenix! That seems like an excellent solution. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * So shall I assume that the conversation is now over and that this page can continue without undue harassment? -- Phoenix (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)