Talk:Roland TR-505

Use of unreliable sources
Regarding your last edit summaries, I agree the use of a self published book and private websites constitutes an unreliable sources. These sources have been removed and replaced with Reliable source (published magazine reviews, product owners manual, and interviews) satisfying your concerns. Please let me know if I missed used an unreliable source, and I will correct.

As for Notable users/ Endorsements section, this is a viable section, and content should not have been deleted. I agree the cited source is unreliable for both artists, but content was factual. I have replaced cited sources with "reliable" sources, magazine interview with quotes. Unfortunately, no "reliable" source found for Aphex Twin (despite many unreliable web references). To comply the Artist was removed until a reliable source can be found.

I am confused with you deleting the entire section: Circuit Bending/ Modifications. Please provide reason, as this is valid topic for TR-505 as there are many modifications available for this device. References to guides and companies who circuit bend the TR-505 were provided. These are internet sources from either instructions on how to perform the modification or products sold by the owner of the website. I realize websites can be unreliable sources, but in this case I don't see how this is avoidable. I am interested in improving the article, please provide guidance to better site these topics, as I am unaware of a better method. I have added a "reliable source" Magazine article describing modifying the TR-80 with individual outputs. --Velonaut303 (talk) 02:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I deleted the previous "Circuit Bending/ Modifications" section because it went against several Wikipedia policies. It used non-neutral language, describing the 505 features as "fantastic". It cited sources that don't necessarily look reliable for Wikipedia, such as Burnkit2600.com. It presents things in a list, without further context or information.
 * The article is generally not in great shape. It's basically a list of technical information without further context. See WP:TECHNICAL and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Popcornfud (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The article is generally not in great shape. It's basically a list of technical information without further context. See WP:TECHNICAL and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Popcornfud (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Formatting
Hi, I formatted the article a bit, adding a table and titles, etc. I'd like to find some references to confirm what is written. Ceefax Jungle Kru (talk) 14:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, looks better. Thanks. I'll add the user's manual as a reference once I dig it out to check document ID # (if any), publication date, etc. Cheers Rwintle (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)