Talk:UE Boom

Size of the picture

I have reduced the size of the picture (in fact, halved it). The main reason is that the picture was excessively big and taking the attention away from the text. As pictures in infoboxes are usually used to give a quick view of the subject, there is no need for this size. The present, 100 px, size is big enough to give readers a good view at the looks of the speakers. When they want more detail, they can double click on the picture for the full size.

Beside that, the big sized picture gave the article a promotional look. The Banner talk 20:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

200px is the size used in HTC One GA article. Dmatteng (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The editor user:The Banner has been blocked again, this time indefinitely for being uncivil and disruptive editing. So his opinion has to be viewed with a grain of salt. Dmatteng (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with The Banner that the 200px picture looks silly, and have reduced it to 100px. The article plainly suffers from a promotional tone and the fat picture is part of the problem. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Please review HTC One article. While it hasn't yet attained FA, it has attained GA. I got the size right from there. What is your opinion? Are there any guidelines that would apply to the article size? Dmatteng (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

While I generally encourage editors to look to GA and FA articles about similar topics for a means of guiding article writing, you can't take what other articles do as binding (or necessarily even correct). The aspect ratios of the two images aren't all that similar; the UE Boom one is much longer than it is wide (probably even longer so if it were cropped fully). This makes the infobox needlessly long, which is stylistically undesirable. I'm not even sure if the image width in the HTC One article is appropriate. Furthermore, the HTC One article is substantially longer than this one; the extra length of the infobox doesn't disrupt the flow of that article as much. And even then, I don't think we're saying the image width is necessarily inappropriate, but that a narrower image size is stylistically preferable, as well as ameliorating concerns of the article being a vehicle for promoting this new product. And while it's not necessarily representative of consensus, we have three experienced editors here agreeing that the image should not be displayed at 200px width. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

If you are not sure that the image on HTC One article is appropriate, why not you try to change it there? Lets see if they will agree with you, or what will be their rationale if they do not. If they will set it to 170px or 150px I'll accept it as well.

The speaker is indeed bigger in the real life than HTC One. But with image set here at 100px a reader would get impression that the speaker is smaller than the HTC One smartphone. Let me also remind, that the AfD's consensus was to keep the article, and it was agreed that it is not promotional, in its form, with the big image. I assume the editors who voted that way are no less experienced, with one saying: "far from promotional." Dmatteng (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't care about that article; I'm not about to edit it just to make a point here. And you're misinterpreting the consensus at AfD: the discussants said absolutely nothing about whether the article had a promotional tone. Rather, they discussed its notability. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Right. "Notability" and "promotional tone" are entirely different things. All the AfD establishes is that an article about this product is not subject to deletion for lack of notability. That's it. And like Mendaliv I don't care about the HTC One article. In this article, a 200px picture looks like it belongs on the side of a bus. JohnInDC (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Have you actually taken a look at the AfD? It wasn't brought because of notability concerns, but by a promotional tone that resulted in The Banner proposing it to AfD as "advertisment". Dmatteng (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I have seen it. What the nominator should have said was, "Mere advertising", because articles aren't deleted for reading like ads. Those are rewritten (as we are doing here). Articles are deleted when they are written about non-notable items with no purpose other than advertising them. And, while I think this is a dead horse - the AfD was about notability - you should take little comfort on the matter of promotional tone when the article's strongest defenders offer comments like, "the article is not so blatantly promotional as to be considered unsalvageable" or "the article as it stands now is not ideally formatted, and does sound somewhat promotional". JohnInDC (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've read it thoroughly. The consensus was based on a finding of notability. In fact, the last couple !votes discussed that any problems of promotion were not insurmountable. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

360˚

Is "360˚" meaningless in the lede? Dmatteng (talk) 12:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Promotional tone

I agree that the article reads a bit too much like a product placement, with e.g. the inclusion of marketing slogans, claims re product capability that appear to come from the manufacturer's own materials ("up to 15 hours of battery life") and the liberal use of qualifiers like "sturdy", "rugged" and others that might've come straight out of an ad. I'm making a few edits to tone some of these things down and ask that discussion here, and consensus, precede any effort to restore the older version. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I concur with John's assessment, and that a toned down version should prevail. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

"Trusted Reviews" liked the thing well enough but its bottom line was not unqualified:

Verdict

The Ultimate Ears UE Boom is a convenient, cool-looking portable Bluetooth speaker that offers superb volume for its small size. However, like most other style-obsessed portable speakers of late, it seems expensive given the sound quality and level of tech sophistication it really brings to the table.

I think if the article is to contain summaries of reviews, this one should be included for balance; my concern is that after a while, it gets a bit silly (this is not a clipping service) and perhaps they are better all left out. Thoughts? JohnInDC (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

In my earlier version, I had dumped the long quotes entirely. I really think that's the better option. As you say, we aren't a news aggregator. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Also while balancing should be a concern, it has to be through the lens of due weight; I'm not sure of the prominence of Trusted Reviews, but I don't think they have the industry prominence of CNET or PC Magazine. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Trusted reviews are not as prominent. There are many available reviews, but I have selected the two that are known, prominent and reliable. Dmatteng (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

…and favorable. I didn't pull Trusted Reviews out of a hat but rather out of the references. I agree that it's not on a level with the other two reviewers but I worry about cherry-picking, or the appearance of it, when a tepid summary from a review that is reliable enough to cite for some purposes here isn't summarized alongside the more glowing write-ups. It might be easier, and less contentious, simply to pull the summaries altogether. JohnInDC (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

From this viewpoint, inclusion of any information can be seen as cherry picking. I have included two review's summaries from the most prominent sources that are available, and I included two, precisely to avoid cherry picking impression. Dmatteng (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Price

I avoided price issue because there is no set price for the speaker. It can be bought from variety of source at different prices. Trusted Reviews was written I think around 2013 when the price was different from today, and it will be different again tomorrow.

While some articles about products do deal with prices (and some even mention it in $$), I think its rather not encyclopedic. Dmatteng (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Price in terms cost in currency generally isn't included unless it's explicitly mentioned and is somehow relevant to discussion of the product. See WP:CATALOG. Price in terms of relative costs, on the other hand (i.e., where a reviewer comments on something being costly, or costly in comparison to similar products) seems perfectly fine to me. That something is expensive, close to the cost of a similar product, much cheaper than a similar product, etc., particularly where a reviewer comments on it or it becomes part of that reviewer's rationale, certainly isn't unencyclopedic in the same way as a price list. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

And responding to the worry that because, for instance, the Trusted Reviews discussion of price of the product is dated information, all the review information is subject to this same criticism. An article from the 1960s discussing a car's engine as "lightweight" or its acceleration as being "speedy" should not be interpreted as imparting either of these qualities relative to the reader's current world. In the same sense, this product might have had good sound compared to 2013 products, but compared to what's out now it might be utter crap. At any rate, my point is that the datedness of sources doesn't merely apply to price, and I don't think price is any different than these other factors merely because it's more controllable by the manufacturer or retailers. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Okey, lets get some more input on this issue. But lets refrain from making edits prior to consensus. What is your opinion, if a reliable review stated that [in 2013] the product was somewhat pricey, but at this time it is no longer the case, should we still say that? BTW: The issue of the product being pricey is included in the quote from CNET. Dmatteng (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Not necessarily. While the sound quality comparative to other speakers may change, it won't start pumping strong bass, nor will it be too quiet. Those things will stay (unlike the price.) Dmatteng (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

If it's no longer the case, find a reliable source that says so. The threshold of inclusion is verifiability, not truth. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Wirecutter and iLounge, in reviews less than a year old, also describe the unit as "pricey" or "expensive". The complaint seems to be pretty common, and absent some indication from the sources that the thing is being discounted, I think it's absolutely fair to include that criticism. JohnInDC (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Okey. Generally in this case we would say: As of 2013 the speaker was considered expensive. However, we might get a consensus on this one. How about to change the wording from "High price" to "Somewhat pricey", similar to the quote from CNET? Dmatteng (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

"Somewhat pricey" is slangy and informal and just another way of saying, "it costs a lot for what you get". We should stick with plain words. JohnInDC (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

We could attribute it. However, how about: "Relatively high price." Dmatteng (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think "relatively" adds anything meaningful. JohnInDC (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Okey, I'll keep this one. Though probably different wording would be preferable and will be addressed in the future. I have taken a look again, the TrustedReviews say: "it seems expensive", and "but the whole market is afflicted by sky–high pricing. It’s a lovely little speaker, but expensive at £170." We won't be introducing OR. Please word it in the content that other speakers are also high priced and it "seems" and lets include it. It is not really a critique of this particular speaker either. In any case, I'm not against inclusion of that it is relatively high priced. Dmatteng (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Promotional tone & slogan

I think some editors simply do not have the experience with editing articles about products, and bringing their personal views on the subject without prior reading of the relevant guidelines and how other product articles look like. In this way any article about a product could be seen as a promotional.

Lets take the issue of a marketing slogan. It is a part of the infobox. There is actually a field called "slogan". Not even to mention that HTC One GA has it included. Dmatteng (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that some editors lack experience but I don't think Medaliv or I fall into that category. So laying that digression to the side, where it belongs, my objection to the marketing slogan is not that it is inappropriate in all cases but that here it is 1) just a marketing slogan; 2) it has achieved no particular note or fame on its own (contrast "See the USA in your Chevrolet" or "I'd like to buy the world a Coke"); and 3) the entire article suffers from a promotional tone and the inclusion of a vapid marketing slogan is symptomatic of the problem. JohnInDC (talk) 16:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I usually prefer the WP:TAGLINE rationale which, while tailored towards film articles, is honestly quite applicable to marketing slogans generally. Things like lead sections and infoboxes are supposed to have a concise overview of the subject, having context. Taglines and slogans generally don't work that way. I haven't seen anything indicating that this product's slogan has any significance outside of the marketing campaign. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The infobox is designed that way, to include "marketing slogans". I assume there was a consensus around it. I think you would like to take a look at other articles about products, especially those that use the infobox. The slogan doesn't have to be notable to be included. As long as a product has a slogan, it can be included. Similar to weight, it doesn't have to be notable to be included in the infobox. Dmatteng (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Infoboxes are often designed without consulting the greater community. And either way, it lies to individual articles to develop a consensus as to what should or should not be included. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the slogan entirely by analogy to WP:TAGLINE. It literally adds nothing non-promotional to this article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

"BBB" and reverts

I'm not sure what "BBB" is or how it would warrant bulk reversion of thoughtful edits, each explained in an edit summary and discussed here at Talk. Please do not revert those edits again without achieving consensus here that they are inappropriate, ill-considered, or that the article is better in its prior iteration. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant BRD. In any case, such post should have been made on my talk page. You are welcome to move it there if you agree. Dmatteng (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I think we should leave it here. I would also add that, in the past 24 hours, you've bulk-reverted edits by two different editors trying to clean up the promotional tone of this article. Four times in fact. You are already in violation of WP:3RR and I would think very carefully about reverting these edits again. I would also suggest that you go and read WP:BRD a bit more carefully. You seem to have overlooked parts of it, for example, "consider reverting only when necessary. It is not the intention of this page to encourage reverting. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed" and "Discuss the edit, and the reasons for the edit, on the article's talk page." JohnInDC (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I plan soon to restore the less promotional version of the article - sensibly-sized picture, less marketing folderol ("acoustic skin with plasma coating"), removing OR "summary" of reviews and the rest unless there is a consensus achieved against it. JohnInDC (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the marketing lingo has to go. "Acoustic skin" and "plasma coating" need to be given context. Otherwise it's just one step removed from blatant peacock wording. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I see that "high price" - identified by at least three reviews as a shortcoming - was also removed from the article with the last blind revert. JohnInDC (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Also is there any conceivable justification for an unsourced "reviews analysis" section that claims to describe a "consensus" among all the reviews on particular (favorable) features of the product? It strikes me as a pretty clear violation of the prohibitions on synthesis and original research. JohnInDC (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

It's blatant synthesis. Summarize what's in the sources (it's much preferable to using non-free quotations anyway) attributing where possible. And you do not need two sections for it as there were earlier. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Lede, bass and price

I think price issue is worded okey now, but it has to be moved to Critique section. At the same time the bass shortcoming was mentioned in virtually every review. I think it would be better to introduce this shortcoming in the lede, instead of the price. Will be a good balance and similar to [HTC One] GA. Dmatteng (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer that none of the pros or cons be described in the lead, to spare editors the painful and ultimately pointless process of tallying which pros and which cons were described in which reviews and whether their mention in the first paragraph is warranted. I think it is sufficient in the intro paragraphs to say, paraphrased, "This is a compact bluetooth speaker manufactured by UE, and intended for outdoor and portable use". People interested in the reviews can read the rest of the (short) article. JohnInDC (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Concur. Most of the article body as it stands, such as the extensive specifications, is bordering on WP:IINFO/WP:NOTGUIDE territory. As it stands, the lede could probably stand as an article on its own. That's not really the right direction. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Combining reception and criticism

Is there really any logic to keeping separate sections? There isn't enough material to justify the sort of split treatment in the current article, and not even Dmatteng's model article HTC One (2013) uses such a structure. At this point it's just redundant. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not against it. Please implement and lets see how it will look. I assume as we are now discussing sections merging, the promotional tone has been sufficiently removed and the adver tag is no longer needed? Dmatteng (talk) 08:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Promotional

I would expect the editors, especially experienced editors to respect the normal editing process. I understand that some editors of opinion that the article is/was promotional, but it is not a reason to engage in 'sword swirling'.

Please identify the words and sentences that you deem promotional and lets discuss it on the talk page prior to implementation. Most often such instances can be remedied by a rewording, not by removing or adding a negative issue in order to try to balance it out. Doing so can lead to a danger that the negative aspects will be given undue weight and reduce quality of the article. Please try to do every edit having GA as a goal. Dmatteng (talk) 08:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Mendaliv and I have identified several instances of promotional language, ad-speak and puffery, as well as content that appears to violate one or another Wikipedia tenet, and have pretty much explained every one of our edits here. I agree that many problems can be solved by rewording, but (to take one example), a "Review summary" that describes a "consensus" among unnamed reviews just can't remain. It is unsourced, original research and synthesis. Similarly marketing buzz phrases like "acoustic plasma skin" or whatever that phrase was, lifted directly from the manufacturer's website, can be reworded to describe the final function (water and stain resistant), without parroting the manufacturer's ad copy - and has been. These - to name two - are not difficult or controversial improvements at all, but rather first-level, obvious steps. With these and other edits, the article reads much better now than it did 36 hours ago. JohnInDC (talk) 13:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Okey, but why not to do the same in a more civilized manner? You can post that you are concerned with section X for being Y and Z and ask my (and others) opinion. To take the example, you could write: I'm afraid the section "Review summary" is unsourced, OR and SYN. I believe that removing it will improve quality of the article. Then I may agree with you, discuss rewording or let you know my reasoning. Certainly the edits are controversial because at least one editor (myself) disagreed. To take the example you had given, you assumed that 'acoustic plasma skin' is lifted directly from the manufacturer's site, please do take a look at http://www.zdnet.com/the-ue-boom-tops-the-portable-speaker-market-review-7000016306/. So, without engaging in discussion you have removed useful information that is introduced in a reliable source.

So, may I ask again, please introduce the edits that you(pl) would like to do prior to implementing them. Dmatteng (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

First. There is no "opinion" when it comes to an OR, synthetic and unsourced summary of unnamed reviews. It isn't proper, it can't be fixed, and is properly removed by any editor who happens across it. Second, I did not "assume" that the phrase was lifted from the manufacturer's site - I went and found it. Go look for yourself, here. It's right there under "Design- the details / Life Resistant". ZDNET simply repeated the same empty phrase in its review (which doesn't speak well for the ZDNET review, but that's another issue). It's marketing fluff. Finally. The article is better but it was puff and fluff before, and if we waited for your agreement on each edit, the thing would be in the same stage as it was 2 days ago. I appreciate that you put a lot of time into that, that you want it to be a Good Article, and that it is frustrating to have others come in and fuss with your work, but the article is not yours and you haven't got the right to vet every proposed change to it. JohnInDC (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Allow me to respectfully disagree with everything you have said. You don't need to go as far as to investigate a reliable and prominent source just in order to prove your point. TrustedReviews is less prominent and might not be a reliable source at all, questionable, or a poor source. ZDNET said it - we can refer to it. In any case, you might be right, I might be right, this is not the point.

Two days is not such a long time, is it? It is a relatively short article and every point could/can be discussed in order to reach consensus. That is what WP:BRD actually suggests. Yes, it might be time consuming, but that is the proper way.

Consider the alternative: edit warring and exchanging sarcasms and insults; or going to DRN and up to ARBCOM. Those ways are less nice and even more time consuming. I'm in no way suggesting that it is what I would like to do, I'm just telling you my observations of what's happening when editors disagree and do not follow the norms. Dmatteng (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I guess then we will have to agree to disagree. I am comfortable with the edits I've made to this article, as well as the way I've gone about them. JohnInDC (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

We're already going through the DR process. That's what brought John here. BRD is an essay, not policy. WP:NOT is policy, and this article contains blatant advertising. We're removing it in accordance with policy, without violating 3RR. As far as I'm concerned, my hands are clean in this matter. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Ad template

I think that the article is now pretty close to respectably factual & neutral and am thinking that the tag might come off soon - thoughts? JohnInDC (talk) 01:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

We're getting close. I really think something has to be done about the "list of features"; if we can't turn that into prose I'd much rather see it axed. We aren't a catalog. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the article now is pretty well written from a neutral point of view. The Features section doesn't contain any ad-words. Stylistically speaking, it should indeed be turned into a prose. Dmatteng (talk) 06:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

No, the article is just not there yet and I would like to see the template restored. The list of features is still containing irrelevant info and promotional items. The Banner talk 09:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The Banner has been recently blocked twice for disruptive editing, failure to adhere to consensus and edit warring. Kindly refer to sections "Blocked" and "Indefinitely blocked" on his talk page. I think he is trying to get back at me because I have reported his behavior to an admin and that led to his block. He has also frivolously submitted this article for AfD. All his posts should be viewed in that light. Dmatteng (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Stricken per WP:NPA. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Welp I think we're pretty much done here. Thoughts? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

My last concern is the sentence The UE Boom was initially shipped without rubberized caps for the USB and audio input ports. Currently the rubberized caps are included, and the company ships them free to customers who didn't get them. To my opinion that is non-relevant and can be removed. The Banner talk 10:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and I took it out. I think it's good now - thanks for all the work! JohnInDC (talk) 10:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Concur. That definitely crosses the WP:IINFO/WP:WEBHOST line. If Ultimate Ears wants to tell their customers they can get free rubber caps, they can do it elsewhere. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Concur. Dmatteng (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Apps

I think we should write about Android and iOS apps that modify speaker's behavior considering that this functionality was welcomed and is mentioned in the reliable sources. Thoughts? Dmatteng (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Not a good idea. Main reason is that those apps are not part of the speakers but external gadgets. The Banner talk 18:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The apps are part of the functionality of the speaker and they do not function without the speaker. Dmatteng (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually it looks like you can peruse the user manual whether or not you have the speakers. But that aside I don't see much to say about the apps. They let you - set an alarm and equalizer. I don't see much there to distinguish them. Also, having just finished stripping all the bloat out of this article, I don't really feel inclined now to start adding it back in. JohnInDC (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. It's just cruft at this point. Wikipedia isn't a product guide. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

In fact, my friend, they question is: do the speakers work without the apps. When the answer is yes, it does not belong to the subject and as a consequence not in the article. The Banner talk 22:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with that reasoning, but the outcome is correct. The fact that this product has some remote control apps for smartphones is trivial. Honestly I think the whole point about the D-ring is equally trivial. It's all little features that don't mean much to the overall story about the subject. If the app support somehow became a major story on its own it might merit mentioning. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

Hmmm, I am not entirely happy with this edit. Seems rather promotional. Can the crowd take a look please? The Banner talk 19:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree, and I've already scaled it back to list simply the ways in which the device can connect with audio sources. JohnInDC (talk) 19:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

While I have thanked your edit User:JohnInDC could you please expand it a bit? I don't really think naming Bluetooth profiles is promotional. However, I have nothing against trimming it in any reasonable way. BTW: What is 'RCA'? Are you referring to 3.5mm audio input? I think it might needs wikifying. Dmatteng (talk) 04:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Fixed by wikilinking The Banner talk 06:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to modify by adding very brief information, please see if that would be acceptable. Dmatteng (talk) 10:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Listing the supported bluetooth profiles is needless fluff in the infobox that provides absolutely no value to this article. I'm honestly tired of seeing the HTC article being bandied about too. There is at least 50x the coverage on that subject that there is of this one. That's a subject genuinely meriting an extensive, long article. This is a speaker that almost nobody cares about. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I have been critical about the independence of DMattEng in relation to the subject from the beginning. And with his edits, he keeps crushing the idea of any independence. The Banner talk 09:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Stricken per WP:NPA. Dmatteng (talk) 01:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Stay off my edits, Dmatteng. If Sam decided it was serious enough, he had stricken it himself. If you want to strike PAs, take a look at your older edits in which you were fishing to get me blocked forever for sending this article to AfD. They should be stricken. Don't rekindle that episode, please, please, please. The Banner talk 08:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I hate to admit that I've wondered, but I don't think it particularly matters. If the edits themselves wouldn't be good even if from an unquestionably neutral party, then the fact that the contributor might have a COI shouldn't change matters. The outcome would be the same whether you're dealing with an adman or someone who just wants to write a FA from the ground-up. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Mendaliv, I think WP:BRD cannot be used because this information was present on the article. (And if I remember right I have removed it) in order to reinstate in a briefer form in the infobox. Yes, I would agree with you and say HTC One has x100 more coverage than UE Boom. But, it shouldn't matter regarding tech specs. I also remember that you have mentioned that the image on HTC One looks inappropriate to you, and I have discussed this issue on WP:IRC. Why while you are being consistent in your opinion regarding the image size, you bring it to action here and you do not do so on the HTC One? Dmatteng (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to echo Mendaliv's reply above, please stop making personal attacks The Banner. Comment on the content, not the editor. Sam Walton (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Small touches

I think instead of "designed by Kenny Scharf" we should write "designed by artist Kenny Scharf". Dmatteng (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Does that add anything useful about the speakers? When people click on the wikilink of Kenny Scharf, they can see straight away that he is a painter. There is no confusion with other people with the name Kenny Scharf. The Banner talk 19:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it is rather a norm. Please see all instances of name mentioning in HTC One and majority of other quality articles. Dmatteng (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Illustrations: Robert Brunner, Apple's head of industrial design at the time, PowerBook_100 FA; Jens Meggers, Symantec's vice president of engineering for Norton products, Microsoft Security Essentials FA. Dmatteng (talk) 20:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You do realize that something being a GA doesn't mean that it's a pattern to be followed. Certainly the HTC One article is better than the article about this product, but that doesn't mean it's the ideal. Even featured articles can be improved; the fact that one article does things one way or another doesn't preclude an alternate local consensus from being formed on another article. In this case, I'm not even sure that the "limited edition" even merits being mentioned. It's one of those things that are tangentially relevant at best. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not see a single name mentioned on HTC One. The Banner talk 20:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Walt Mossberg of The Wall Street Journal favored the One over its closest rival, HTC One (2013). Usually we shouldn't strip article of details for which there are reliable sources, in fact our goal is to expand it. If we strife for quality article we have to make our models FA and GA articles that were officially reviewed. Dmatteng (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The point is: is it relevant? Do you miss serious information when you let it out? To my opinion, the answer on both questions is no. The Banner talk 21:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

It was retained per consensus. (At the time the advert template was removed editors agreed that the article is looking appropriate.) If you will review FA articles you will see that different types of information, not just 'serious information' is being introduced. Dmatteng (talk) 21:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I see confusion... but I was talking about your proposal for this article. The Banner talk 22:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

What's the confusion? I have proposed to specify who Kenny Scharf is as it is done in majority of quality articles. Dmatteng (talk) 07:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

You look too often to other articles. GA and FA articles can be an example but they offer no guidelines how to do something. Every article is judged on its own merits and the facts (and sources) in articles are also judged on their own merits. The Banner talk 09:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

What about the more serious question: Should we even mention the limited edition at all? Next thing you know we'll be listing the Eddie Bauer version. Or the Happy Meal version. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Since when it is bad to look at FA aricles? Mendaliv, I'm still waiting your input in the infobox section. Why should we remove it? There are reliable sources for that and we are giving it due weight, just one sentence and short one for that. Dmatteng (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes one sentence is one sentence too many. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Could you please let me what WP guideline do you have in mind on that? Dmatteng (talk) 19:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, could you please provide the relevant quote from WP:UNDUE? I have read it and cannot see clearly your point as of yet. Dmatteng (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

"Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well." Thus, we don't talk about some minutiae as though it has equal prominence to reviews of the product itself. Thus we should seriously consider whether it's worth talking about the limited edition at all. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

See also WP:BALASPS. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I cannot see in the quote much relation to our discussion. The quote discusses 'competing views' and we are not dealing with that in this section. Limited editions are widely being mentioned on many product related articles. Dmatteng (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, see WP:BALASPS. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Techradar

It is a reliable source that is being used several time on HTC One (m7) and other quality articles. If you sure that it is not a reliable source I think you should be consistent and remove the relevant content from the HTC One (m7) and other articles. I'm being criticized that the article should include more sources and then once I include a good source, I'm being reverted. Some fairness please. Dmatteng (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

No. I'm not interested in editing the HTC One article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

We have plenty of sources already for this particular electronic item. We don't need more saying essentially the same thing. We particularly don't need more after having had other, critical sources left out on the ground that they were not as high-profile as the well known sources that were already present. JohnInDC (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Mendaliv, I was talking to JohnInDC about HTC One in this section. John, it is not the same thing, we have one source saying bass is good, and one sources that says the bass is not good. Per opinion of Techradar, the bass is good. If we are to retain the content we are getting it towards being more balanced per WP:NPOV. Currently the article reads as if the person(s) who wrote it has given too much prominence to the negative aspects. Regarding critical sources left, we have actually retained TrustedReviews content though we didn't cite it. Dmatteng (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I doubt John is interested in editing the HTC One article either. If he were, he would. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not a matter of reliability but of weight - and, yes, balance. If you are going to throw in a second-tier reviewer who says a nice thing, then throw in the second-tier reviewer that didn't. Or - do as we have done to this point, with this (fairly insignificant) product: Leave them both out. JohnInDC (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'll accept the first option. Dmatteng (talk) 15:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I suggest to remove it/leave it out. The Banner talk 18:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Personally I think that an article of this length, addressing an unremarkable product that will probably be forgotten (or at least obsoleted) in a year, doesn't merit all these quotes and reviews - and would not object if the consensus were to take both back out. JohnInDC (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Concur. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I concur The Banner talk 20:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The Banner is being concur with himself? JohnInDC: PowerBook 100 is an obsolete device, and one of only 15 FA articles on products. It is also relatively very detailed, and so it is not ground for not improving an article. Dmatteng (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I concur with the proposal of JohninDC which goes further than my proposal. The Banner talk 19:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Trusted Reviews

"It’s a lovely little speaker, but expensive at £170." I generally like this review site, but in this particular review they are wrong about the price so I think we shouldn't use it this particular information. First, since they name the price in pounds, we may easily assume that they are UK based. £170 is 285$. I have no idea where they got this price. The price was steadily 200$ on Logitech's site and I see now it is 175$ on Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Ultimate-Ears-Wireless-Bluetooth-Speaker/dp/B00CM0XHNS). Should we intentionally deceive the readers by providing wrong information merely because it is mentioned on a review site? We didn't do so for 'plasma skin' even though it is mentioned on ZDNET. Even one of the readers who commented right on the article, wrote: "This review is very inaccurate. And some things have changed." I support to use the Trusted Reviews however, on things like battery life, but not on price. Dmatteng (talk) 19:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh for God's sake. We're not here to evaluate the reliability of particular pieces in reliable sources, and in the interest of "balance", pick and choose what we like. I'm taking out both the newer reviews. JohnInDC (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Prices change all the time in response to market forces (which are influenced by things like reviews). The £170 value could have been the MSRP when the product was first released, could have been street price due to product shortages if the UE Boom was intensely popular (this happens all the time with video game consoles, for instance). Furthermore, prices in one country can be radically different than prices in another country, in a manner completely independent of the exchange rate between the two countries' currencies (the Kirtsaeng case involving college textbooks being a very recent example). I'm also not usually a fan of second-guessing specific claims in or making original interpretations of an otherwise reliable source (which might violate WP:V and WP:SYN, respectively). On the other hand, when something is objectively, unquestionably incorrect, we usually don't quote it or use it, and might even exclude the entire source. In this case, I don't think there's a real argument to be made that this source is objectively incorrect rather than, perhaps, rendered less accurate by the passage of time. Here's what I suggest. (see below)Replace Trusted Reviews wrote, "It’s a lovely little speaker, but expensive" with In June 2013, Trusted Reviews wrote, "It’s a lovely little speaker, but expensive". That way, our readers will understand that the fact that it's expensive is tied to the time the review was written. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I notice that you altered the way the Trusted Reviews review was used shortly after posting this thread in a manner that made the price of the unit appear to be the sole focus of the review. While I usually don't object to shortening quotes, I think doing so in that way made the review appear almost dismissive ("It's a lovely little speaker" instead of "like most other style-obsessed portable speakers of late, it seems expensive given the sound quality and level of tech sophistication it really brings to the table"). Anyway, between the version before and after your truncation, I prefer the former version, but I also support adding the In June 2013, Trusted Reviews wrote, ... that I suggested before. Between that and the current version, where John has removed both Techradar and Trusted Reviews, I don't particularly care. I could go either way, though I think the Techradar "review" can barely be called a review rather than a mere mention in the press. Big deal. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm really tired of the nickel-and-diming and the constant negotiation over evanescent notions of "balance". The article was fine as it was before this round of additions; it made it clear, with quotes from sources commensurate with the speaker's impact in the larger marketplace, that it's a nice little bit of kit. It doesn't need more sources saying the same thing, particularly when more critical commentary from equally reliable sources are bowdlerized because they're stale or somehow otherwise not fair. We should leave out the last two additions, or put them both in, even if one of them doesn't shed quite as favorable a light on this product. JohnInDC (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no need to cherry-pick additions that shed favorable light on this product. But, we should not go to extremes and exclude information that happens to be favorable, if it is objective. Nor we have to 'counterbalance' it with information that we know is as no longer correct. We can have a relevant discussion about reliability of Techradar in the relevant venue. There are currently many articles that use the source, including GA article(s), so in absence of such discussion we would deem it a reliable source. Dmatteng (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's the thing: that this product is expensive for what you get isn't incorrect. While the £170 price may be outdated, a drop in price over a year does not increase the value of a product, especially when you're dealing with consumer electronics. I see no reason to doubt the review on that count. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Electronics manufacturers routinely drop prices on older items as they begin to recede from the cutting edge. They become less expensive, but may represent no greater a value. You pay less - but get less too (compared to what has become available in the meantime). JohnInDC (talk) 17:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

There could be numerous reasons for dropping the price, but it doesn't matter to us unless the reason for dropping the price has been stated in a reliable source. With such information absent our speculation is OR. We have to summarize current relevant information, and if we would like to keep outdated information that is no longer valid, that is ok too, but we have to do that in a History section. That is how it is being done on the Wikipedia. Dmatteng (talk) 13:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Going to Amazon and checking the price yourself is OR. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Price

I would seriously consider not to mention anything about the price. We are writing encyclopedia article, not a buyers guide. The price is a subject of a constant change, as Mendaliv has noted. If we would like to attribute it to a specific time frame that would only be appropriate in History section. But I see it somewhat problematic even then because at the same period of time the product may be priced differently in some countries. Dmatteng (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Well since the Trustedreviews review has been axed this is kind of a moot point. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It is in the lead. Dmatteng (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The reliable sources commented on the comparatively high price. It's legitimately in the article. JohnInDC (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no discussion about reliable sources mentioning relatively high price. It is the reasons mentioned above that should be assessed. Dmatteng (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Then put back in the ref to Trusted Reviews. Honestly. And no, it doesn't need to be qualified by date. Reviewers only review things when they're new. It's implicit in any review that the reviewer is evaluating a new product, in the market into which the new product has been introduced. No one reviews stale products, and few reviews compare current products to ones that aren't being sold any more. If a review criticizes a product as relatively high-priced, then it is high-priced compared to competing products extant at the time of the review, not compared to last year's or next year's products. If a product is way overpriced, and the company responds with a price drop and reliable sources reassess their evaluation (or at least note the price drop, see the first iPhone), then the article should say something. But otherwise? Products are introduced. Sometimes they're priced low, or high, or just right. Sometimes manufacturers adjust pricing; sometimes they don't. If later developments are sufficiently noteworthy that they are reported by reliable sources, then include them in the article. Otherwise it's just the usual, expected progression of events and not worth either highlighting or submerging in an article. JohnInDC (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The procedures of the reviews shouldn't guide us in writing a Wikipedia article. If a product was released with a high price, in a specific country, we cannot write "the product is expensive" because it implies that the product is currently being viewed as expensive in all countries and that is OR. I'll reinstate Trusted Reviews ref and will try to find the right wording. Dmatteng (talk) 04:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Why don't we just axe all the reviews then? I mean, if we want to talk about time, it's easy enough to argue that all the positive reviews are surely inaccurate as to the present because they were written over a year ago. Or argue that the whole review is clearly only reflective of the reviewer's beliefs, but our citing them here suggests we endorse those beliefs. Be serious. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Mendaliv, the topic of this discussion is a price issue. May I copy your comment and open a new topic? Actually I'll go ahead and do it. Please feel free to revert. Dmatteng (talk) 06:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Reviews

Please don't move my replies around out of their original context. Thanks. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC) Copied here the original post as it is a new topic, and replied here. Dmatteng (talk) 09:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

"Why don't we just axe all the reviews then? I mean, if we want to talk about time, it's easy enough to argue that all the positive reviews are surely inaccurate as to the present because they were written over a year ago. Or argue that the whole review is clearly only reflective of the reviewer's beliefs, but our citing them here suggests we endorse those beliefs. Be serious. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)"

Why would you deem all positive (or negative) reviews to be inaccurate? Please note, that as I have written twice, the price may vary in different countries. But the sound signature, battery life, etc would be absolutely the same regardless of the geographical location. We do not endorse them, we summarize them per the reliable sources. If some parameter would suddenly change in the newer revisions of the product, we would certainly update the article and remove/move to History information that is no longer correct. Example: The battery life would be reduced to 5 hours. In this case we would have to eliminate content such as: "long-life battery". Dmatteng (talk) 07:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Not true. Sound quality, whether a product has "good" or "poor" battery life, and other aspects are highly subjective, though reviewers sometimes make a show out of making their reviews seem objective. The fact is, definitions of "fast car" or "good sound" differ drastically between places and times, and in the consumer electronics sphere do so at least as drastically as do differences in price. So do you want the reviews out, or do you want the comment on how pricey this gadget was in? Because your objection to the price is even more applicable to the subjective evaluations of quality. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean? Do you propose to stop using reliable sources on the Wikipedia? Dmatteng (talk) 11:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Forgive me, Dmatteng, but that's what you seemed to be suggesting! JohnInDC (talk) 13:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure? My quote: "I'll reinstate Trusted Reviews ref and will try to find the right wording." Dmatteng (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

"I would seriously consider not to mention anything about the price.". JohnInDC (talk) 12:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

And why do you need to find the right wording anyhow? You quoted CNET, you quoted PC Mag, you quoted TechRadar (in fact just about half of its brief capsule review) - why not just quote Trusted Reviews? JohnInDC (talk) 12:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't find an appropriate quote and the right attribution, because Trusted Reviews based their assessment of the speaker being expensive on it's initial price in UK (considering that was indeed the right price, of which I'm not sure.) That price is much higher than both initial prices worldwide and the current prices worldwide. Would it be ok if I do it in a History section? Dmatteng (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The speaker came out last year. There's no real "history". The only thing in there would be that one entry. That's not only silly, it needlessly breaks up the flow of the article. Either way, I see no reason to doubt the accuracy of Trusted Reviews solely on the ground that you can't confirm the price at which it was reviewed was correct. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Any information is history if it is not the current one. I'll reach a consensus with you on this one (point) and for the purpose of our discussion will assume that the price was right. However, according to amazon UK http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=ue+boom the current price is £169.99. How would you like to proceed? What quote, what attribution and what section please? Dmatteng (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The current Amazon price precisely matches the "Review Price" stated at the top of the Trusted Reviews article here. I don't understand the issue. As for language, I don't know what's wrong with the TR "Verdict", which encapsulates TR's conclusions: "The Ultimate Ears UE Boom is a convenient, cool-looking portable Bluetooth speaker that offers superb volume for its small size. However, like most other style-obsessed portable speakers of late, it seems expensive given the sound quality and level of tech sophistication it really brings to the table.". JohnInDC (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'll reinstate both this and Techradar's one. However the problem is that UK's price is much higher than both initial review price and current price in the rest of the countries. While the review clearly assessed 'price vs what it brings to the table' we can be pretty sure that it would sound different would the price be 109$ less. (284$ in UK vs 175$ elsewhere.) What is your advise please? Dmatteng (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't make things complicated by second-guessing what a source says. At the end of the day, the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. We can verify, for Wikipedia purposes, that it was considered expensive in 2013. We cannot verify, for Wikipedia purposes, that the information they used was in any way incorrect, nor that the current situation is any different. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. However, to be precise - it was considered expensive just only in UK where the price has been higher by 109$ (per Trusted Reviews.) This is the reason I would like to get an advise from JohnInDC. Dmatteng (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

In fact it's not an uncommon observation on this side of the Atlantic as well - iLounge: "At $150, it would have been a slam dunk, but at $200, it seems just a little too expensive for the audio performance it delivers". CNET: "Yeah, it's a bit pricey at $200, but once you use it for a while, I don't think you'll regret buying it. It bests our recent outdoor Bluetooth favorite, the Grace Digital Ecoxgear Ecoxbt, on nearly every front -- design, features, audio quality, and battery life -- except for price." JohnInDC (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

That was exactly my point. Would the speaker be 150$ or 175$ it's highly likely that Ilounge's review would be even more favorable, as well as CNET's. I do agree with Mendaliv that it is OR would we include it in the article, something I have never proposed. But I think it gives us an idea of how to better summarize the sources without introduce inaccurate information. What is more important, is that 200$ was indeed the world price for the time the reviews were written. That is the problem with Trusted Reviews only as it was written in UK, the only country with unusually high price. I'm still not opposing to include it, but we should summarize it properly or give it a proper attribution if we opt to use a quote. Dmatteng (talk) 09:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Importance assessment

Quote: "Topics that are reasonably notable without necessarily being famous or very notable outside of the field. This may also include product brand topics that have or had distribution on a national level or distribution in multiple countries." - I think UE Boom is reasonable notable. It is not famous or very notable outside of the field as of now. It is certainly being distributed on a national level and in multiple countries. In my opinion it fills exactly the description of mid-importance. Dmatteng (talk) 07:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, it also fits the bill for Low importance: Topics of mostly specialized interest or those that are only included for complete coverage or as examples of a higher-level topic; peripheral or trivial brand-related topics. Also encompasses topics about generally lesser-known product brand topics, and may include those that have or had local, regional or statewide distribution. Especially the part Topics of mostly specialized interest (...) The Banner talk 13:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

This sure as heck isn't a C-Class article either. The only reason it's not a stub is that it has sectioning. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The Banner missed the point of multiple countries vs local-nationwide in mid and low importance respectively. Dmatteng (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

No, my friend, you missed the point on Topics of mostly specialized interest (...). These speaker are clearly not for the big audience but as you read the specifications they have a rather limited target group. The Banner talk 19:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

How do you see it? Does the speaker requires specific equipment or specific knowledge in order to use it? What is 'specialized interest'? HTC One or any smart phone is 'specialized interest' as it only targets the people who are interested to use smart phones? Does this speaker is only of interest to specialists? This is a speaker that works with any source that got Bluetooth and even compatible with 3.5mm TRRS, it doesn't require special knowledge to use, it is being sold internationally. Fills the description of mid-importance. Dmatteng (talk) 06:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Unless you look at it with a neutral point of view. Than you can see that it is low importance. For instance, because only a fraction of the general public will be interested in using audio-speakers outside. Please, assess the speakers in a neutral way. The Banner talk 07:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. This topic is just barely notable. Even if an utterly slavish textualist approach to understanding what "mid" versus "low" importance means were appropriate, it's clear from the quoted text that the national level/multiple countries aspect is neither necessary nor sufficient. I wouldn't even call it a reasonable rule of thumb considering it's such a loose criterion. Honestly, I might even go so far as to call this a failed brand considering how little attention it's garnered. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you are not using the projects' description. You are referring to what is generally considered mid or low importance per outside-of-the-Wikipedia perception. I have taken a neutral view and simply browsed the descriptions and saw where it fits. I have had absolutely no problem with it rated low-importance. If you will change the description in the assessment's description I'll be able to reassess it according to a new set of conditions. But as it stands now it fits the mid-importance description. "reasonably notable without necessarily being famous" it fits it very well as the topic is mentioned with details in multiple reliable sources. Dmatteng (talk) 10:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

What I see is a ridiculous amount of attention being lavished on a single audio product offered by a firm better known for computer mice and other peripherals. Whatever the technical definition may be, describing this article as one of "mid-level" importance is a stretch. As has been noted, the subject is of marginal notability in the first place and in all likelihood in a year, or two, will have been superseded by some other new better-than-ever design and recede into obscurity. Probably the better thing from the outset would have been to fold the contents of this article into a single paragraph, maybe two, on the Ultimate Ears page, or on a compilation page briefly summarizing all products in the line, as with Bose SoundLink. Indeed it is instructive to go visit the PC Mag page on which this product is reviewed, here, and tally up how many other of the 10 Best Speakers (all presumably of roughly equal notability and importance to this one) have their own dedicated Wikipedia articles. I didn't look at every single one but in my sampling, UE Boom was the only one. I'm not advocating deletion of the page - it's here now - but the truth is that this essentially a niche product, and not much in the grander scheme. JohnInDC (talk) 11:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd support a merge to Ultimate Ears. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Copied to a new section, as this topic's scope is the discussion of importance assessment. Please be on topic JohnInDC. Dmatteng (talk) 12:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Please don't scold me, particularly when you wrong. My comment about the importance of this product, in relation to its importance assessment, was square on point. JohnInDC (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I misunderstood you. What is the importance assessment you are suggesting? Please relate it to the project's description. Dmatteng (talk) 12:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you please stop creating new sections when the discussion moves towards a new target? You aren't the moderator of this talk page. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I think such a message would be better posted on my talk page. Will it lead towards improvement of an article? Please note: "new target". New target should be in a section with a new topic in order that everything will look organized and coherent. Dmatteng (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, regardless, I'm considering whether to propose a merge to Ultimate Ears. Anyway, just know that this isn't your article, nor your talk page, so please stop repositioning, copying, etc. comments needlessly. It only serves to confuse people. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Quality assessment

"This sure as heck isn't a C-Class article either. The only reason it's not a stub is that it has sectioning. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)"

Quote for class C: "The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup." Compare with: "An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources." - The article doesn't lack adequate reliable sources, it is not missing important content, as all important details have been mentioned; nor it contains much irrelevant material. The article has references to reliable sources. I don't think the article has significant problems, nor does it require substantial cleanup. It just has to be expanded with NPOV in mind. Actually the article is between Class C to Class B per the above descriptions. Dmatteng (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Merger with Ultimate Ears

"What I see is a ridiculous amount of attention being lavished on a single audio product offered by a firm better known for computer mice and other peripherals. Whatever the technical definition may be, describing this article as one of "mid-level" importance is a stretch. As has been noted, the subject is of marginal notability in the first place and in all likelihood in a year, or two, will have been superseded by some other new better-than-ever design and recede into obscurity. Probably the better thing from the outset would have been to fold the contents of this article into a single paragraph, maybe two, on the Ultimate Ears page, or on a compilation page briefly summarizing all products in the line, as with Bose SoundLink. Indeed it is instructive to go visit the PC Mag page on which this product is reviewed, here, and tally up how many other of the 10 Best Speakers (all presumably of roughly equal notability and importance to this one) have their own dedicated Wikipedia articles. I didn't look at every single one but in my sampling, UE Boom was the only one. I'm not advocating deletion of the page - it's here now - but the truth is that this essentially a niche product, and not much in the grander scheme. JohnInDC (talk) 11:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd support a merge to Ultimate Ears. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)"

There is a good coverage with multiple reliable sources being available. Ultimate Ears is not known for releasing computer mices and other peripherals, Logitech is. The product is manufactured by UE though and got its trademark on it, please see the photo, not that of Logitech. Dmatteng (talk) 12:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

So Logitech doesn't belong in this article. Thanks. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Logitech belongs to the article, however it has it's own line of Bluetooth speakers. Dmatteng (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what that means. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Neither I do. However, please take a look: http://www.amazon.com/Logitech-984-000298-Boombox-Bluetooth-Speakerphone/dp/B0094S354W/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1400860142&sr=8-1&keywords=logitech+bluetooth+speaker. Dmatteng (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Logitech bought the brand and slapped it on a speaker. So Ultimate Ears isn't the manufacturer at all. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but the way I see it, they run them in parallel. Ie, Logitech has it's own line of speakers and UE its own. All of this is not relevant however. Logitech didn't slap UE brand on its speakers. Dmatteng (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Mobile phone infobox

I have verified the use of Mobile infobox for this product. I went to WP:IRC and talked to the experienced editors there. They have said that I can absolutely use the infobox even though the product is not a mobile phone. Dmatteng (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Replying to Nick's post on "Major changes 23 May by Mendaliv" because that section got too long. Nick, certainly I didn't imply that your opinion should be given more weight. It is not an administrative issue and you have acted as an experienced editor. However being advised that this Infobox can be used on this article, should it be taken into account that you and Dragonfly are in consensus? I still think that using the Infobox is beneficial due to many similarities between Bluetooth speakers and Mobile phones and it allows us to keep specs out of the article. I think it is the best solution considering there is no specific Infobox for audio equipment. Dmatteng (talk) 06:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh for the love of Pete, would you stop replying to comments all over creation? This is not your personal talk page. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Per Nick's response I would like to clarify that he hasn't specifically suggested the use of the mobile infobox. However he said that in lieu of audio equipment infobox I can use any infobox that I think would be appropriate. He has found the infobox as used on the article OK (in terms of layout). Dmatteng (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

You can use whatever infobox you see fit? I think you're mistaken as to who owns this article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

That is what I was told at the time of the creation of the article. If you would like, please request for the log of the IRC conversation. I think WP:OWN cannot be applied as at that time the article might not yet been posted. Dmatteng (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Dmatteng, quit. Just stop. Nick told you here that you have taken his remarks out of context and that he does not want you using his name to advance your arguments. You are skating close to sanctionable behavior. JohnInDC (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, lets stop. Dmatteng (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Major changes 23 May by Mendaliv

1) Both Ultimate Ears and Logitech has to be mentioned. You have seen this for example in iF award, but it is not being limited to it; 2) You have introduced some inaccuracies such as: "UE Boom is an elongated cylinder" - it is not, just a shape of; "weighing 538 g (19.0 oz) without batteries." - the speaker got a non-replaceable battery so it cannot be possible weighted without a battery; "different from most competitors and yet consistent with both prior UE Boombox designs" - previous quote was better because it was a bit as a secondary source, ie a review reviewing a review; "phone connector" - there are many types, better to find another wording, normally reviews use auxiliary; you have left quotes in all cases of negative critique, however removed them in all cases of positive critique; received gold award in iF, it seems to be a prestigious award. 3) You reduced the quality of the article by reducing the number of reliable sources. Dmatteng (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

(1) Disagree. Either Ultimate Ears makes it or Logitech makes it; if Logitech doesn't make it, they have no relevance to this article. If you want to know who owns Ultimate Ears, click on the link to them. (2) You don't have to say something is cylinder-shaped in English for it to still make sense. To say it's an elongated cylinder means it's in the shape of an elongated cylinder. (3) Okay, I'll fix the weight. I based that on the former "speaker only" qualification and mistakenly assumed it meant the speaker without something that could be put inside it. In other words a battery. So apparently that was already inaccurate and I just propagated it. (3) Not really a valid argument; the aggregator is if anything a worse source as unsigned and incorporating consumer reviews. (4) I'll change it to "3.5 mm phone connector". I had already written exactly that. If there's any difference, it's such minutiae as to make no difference for Wikipedia purposes. Honestly, I'm debating whether to just change it to "line in" or just say "wired connection". Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. (5) If that's what I did, it wasn't intentional, and I don't think it makes the article unbalanced anyway. (6) Find a source that says "gold award". The provided one doesn't. (7) Not logically valid; if I removed reliable sources it was stuff that was redundant. Removing redundant sources does not decrease the quality of the article. (8) Using the mobile phone infobox was confusing and frankly an inaccurate use of it. Either way, there is no consensus for maintaining all that information in the infobox, such as the number of drivers, max volume output, etc, rather than providing it in prose format. And just because someone on IRC tells you that something's okay doesn't mean it creates a binding consensus or precedent on this article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Would there be any disadvantage to creating a new infobox specifically for audio equipment like this? DS (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

No, there wouldn't be. I look forward to discussing what's relevant to include. I expect much of what was in the infobox here would be excluded though. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken I was recommended to use the Mobile infobox by editor User:Nick and seconded by User:DragonflySixtyseven. I will revert the changes and removal of reliable sources and relevant content and restore the article in its form per prior consensuses. Dmatteng (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus to revert Mendaliv's edits or to restore the mobile phone info box to this article about a bluetooth speaker. JohnInDC (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

That it was a complete revert of everything I did is particularly troubling. By blindly reverting, Dmatteng restored unsourced content (the "generally favorable reviews" paragraph for instance), undid the implementation of citation templates (instead replacing them with the bare URL/bot-titled references that I had replaced), removed references that I had inserted to support specific sentences (e.g., the putative use of the D-hook was not supported by a source), removed a maintenance template without fixing it... he even reverted the addition of something so basic and common as {{convert}} templates (which I'd added to the mobile phone infobox before removing it entirely and prosifying the content). These are all things that I introduced one at a time, over the course of sixteen edits, generally with edit summaries. This is a fairly clear misapplication of WP:BRD, which explicitly states that reverting should only be carried out when necessary, when the edit is not an improvement, and when it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you might misunderstand the work of a Wikipedia editor, and it is especially troubling as you are an experienced editor. Our role is not to retype reliable sources, our role is to summarize them. "generally favorable reviews" paragraph is our summarization of the reliable sources. It is done this way on multiple articles and that includes HTC One GA that itself got reviewed by a number of experienced editors. Regarding consensus on Infobox, have you included User:Nick and the other very experienced editor who seconded him? You have introduced a number of inaccuracies such as 'speaker only' that stood for the speaker without accessories, not without non-removable battery. This fact might show that you are not being familiar with the topic. Nevertheless, I do think that you are right that your improvements in Infobox shouldn't have been reverted, I overlooked it. Dmatteng (talk) 09:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say "you must use this specific infobox" - you asked if the article looked OK with the mobile phone infobox, and we (myself and Dragonfly6-7) said that it did indeed look acceptable. That wasn't an endorsement of the content, simply that the infobox looked sensible and was correctly formatted (i.e no broken piping). I must also caution you - my opinion is in no way any more important than that of any other editor, and in terms of forming consensus, my comments about the layout and formatting of the article should not in any way be used to determine consensus for the precise content contained within the article. Nick (talk) 10:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Concur. Certainly a specific infobox for audio equipment would be great. Dmatteng (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Dmatteng, please stop bulk-reinstating your preferred version. Mendaliv made a series of edits that made the article more precise, lined it up better with the sources, and - in my view - by streamlining it, made it better. If you have a concern about a particular edit, discuss it here. And do so before you make it. Stop taking an axe to edits that you simply don't like. JohnInDC (talk) 11:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

What really, really pisses me off are these three edit summaries, which, when compared to the version John subsequently restored, makes it clear there were substantial improvements Dmatteng simply ignored. The use of citation templates was not completely restored, retaining the unsourced claim of generally favorable reviews, inserting unquestionably bad wording ("It is a water and stain resistant with coating that doesn't allow water to penetrate in.", also without a source, I note), retaining the unsourced "gold" status of the iF design award (as well as removing the {{third-party-inline}} tag without fixing the problem). I'm not even going to begin digging through this to find exactly what else got screwed up by this blind reverting. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

"the version John subsequently restored" is not precisely correct. Please call it "my version". Water and stain resistance got multiple sources. Gold status is being supported by the source if I'm not mistaken. Third-party-inline are all a part of the content. Bad wording - you are right here. You know that English grammar is not my horse. Phrases such as "really pisses me off" is certainly not going to benefit anyone and just add unnecessarily hot air. Dmatteng (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Huh? It's not your version that John restored, he reverted your version. Gold status is not in the unreliable press release. I've asked you several times to provide a better source. As to my wording, to be perfectly honest, I'm not a man that likes to use a five-dollar word needlessly. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Logitech vs UE

Logitech is manufacturer and UE is a brand. From PC Mag: "Logitech's Bluetooth speakers have proven to offer solid performance in small, affordable packages, and the UE Boom (named for the Ultimate Ears brand Logitech acquired)" Dmatteng (talk) 10:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

This comment, Dmatteng, would probably have made more sense if placed up where the discussion on this issue was already taking place ("Merger with Ultimate Ears"), up where you said that Logitech didn't manufacture the speaker. JohnInDC (talk) 11:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I have reviewed how it is being said in PC Mag. The issue may not be so clear, I think they are in some way of transition. Dmatteng (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

UE Megaboom

This guy isn't mentioned here. --Jobu0101 (talk) 07:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)