Talk:Brionvega

Images

There are two similar images of the TS 522 on this page. The one from the Milan Museum of Science and Technology contains detailed historical and technical information about the product in the commons metadata (and is a better photo in my view). I am inclined to remove the second image (2004 2007 "Retro" model). Cheers Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Correction: One is the TS 502 (original, pictured main image), the other is the TS 522 (2007 re-issue). I've moved the latter to the "gallery". Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Eliminating TS 522. (Redundant.) -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done (See also: "Note 1" "Note 5" and metadata in object photograph.)

Clean-up?

I've added a number of photographs to the "Gallery", references, and tidied-up the syntax of this article somewhat (much still to do), though I'm at a bit of a loss concerning the paragraph beginning: "In 1993, Gian Mario Rossignolo bought Brionvega..." (which appears to have been written by someone with first hand knowledge of the matter and is without any corroborating references). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The paragraph in question is:

In 1993, Gian Mario Rossignolo bought Brionvega from the Brion family and placed it into his Sèleco company (which later became Seleco-Formenti). Seleco developed financial problems when Turkish electronics producers caused prices to fall rapidly and by April 1997 Seleco-Formenti was declared bankrupt. Almost 10 years later, the Brionvega brand came back to life when it was bought twice - the rights for the production of radios and audio systems was bought by Sim2 Multimedia whilst in August 2006 the rights for the Brionvega brand plus the TV designs and production was taken over by the Super//Fluo company.

I have moved it here until these facts can be properly sourced. (The paragraph concerning this part of the company's history has also been replaced for now with an abbreviated version that has better sourcing.) -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done

PS: Concerning this paragraph, I question the need to include the various redlinked individuals/entities. (I am also going to remove the {{third-party|date=March 2016}} tag as I have now removed this material and substantially rewritten the article.) -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Filodiffusore Brionvega FD1102?

I would like to add a photograph of the Filodiffusore Brionvega FD1102. If one can be located or uploaded to Commons, please let me know. (There is already a shot of the Brionvega FD1101 in the "Gallery".) Thank you, Cl3phact0 (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Doney 14 television

I have read several claims that the Brionvega Doney 14 (1962) was the first portable transistor television made in Europe (see this and this). Further corroboration would be appreciated. Thank you, Cl3phact0 (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

More description

Would be helpful to have more description of the product designs and why they were innovative. At the moment, we have lists of architects and designers, lists of products, lists of awards, but not much in the way of description of the actual designs themselves. (The gallery definitely helps and is lovely but it feels like it needs to be described in prose as well.) Cielquiparle (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Cielquiparle. There are astoundingly detailed descriptions and historical/critical notes about these objects embedded in the metadata of the photographs (at lease those from the National Museum of Science and Technology). It's all in Italian, but I'd be happy to translate and re-word the information in order to add more descriptive language and context—if this metadata is considered WP:RS. I've not found anything specific concerning the use of this type of information, or whether its presence on Commons and the fact that it's from a national museum (and presumably obviously written by an expert in the field) qualifies it as "published" or "reliable". (This is why I've mostly confined its use to the "Notes", although, for what it's worth, I've see considerably less "solid" information used elsewhere in this encyclopaedia.) Appreciate your thoughts. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Stub no more?

Having recently gained a clearer understanding of what constitutes a Stub on Wikipedia, I propose that the "stub tag" be removed from this article. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done (Thanks Bearcat) -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the tag was actually automatically removed by AWB while I was in the process of performing a different edit, because the article length surpassed AWB's threshhold for "article is long enough to automatically remove stub tags if they're still present". But when it comes to removing stub tags manually, my own rule of thumb is generally that I leave it alone if the entire article from header to categories is visible entirely on a single screen, and remove it if I have to use the scroll bar to get to the bottom of the page in view mode. You're free to pick your own cutoffs if you want, but generally it's a thing you can just do rather than needing to propose it for discussion. Bearcat (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Bearcat. Appreciate the advice. I haven't yet come around to usinng any of the tools like AWB. I suppose I ought to sooner or later (as all the repetitive little edits can be tedious indeed).

I do have a similar concern regarding a "peacock" tag on another article. If you have time, please look at Talk:Lella Vignelli#Copy edit and let me know if it's ok to remove this tag in a case where much of the reworking of the article is by my own hand.

Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)