This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk page
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.
i don't think, that the prices are "ever falling" there are many CE sectors, where the pricing is quite constant since many years. The number of transistors is you can get for a given price is rising and you get more perforamnce and features for the same price. --MrBurns (talk) 22:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Phrase no longer present in article. ~KvnG 15:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking that myself! I searched for 'brown goods' and like you got redirected with no explanation! I've since corrected the redirect to the correct explanation and expanded the term for our UK visitors. See Brown goods. --Quatermass (talk) 09:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment: Looking purely at the semantics and scope of it, they are different things; electronic industry manufactures electronics that are meant for others than consumers, too. I think the Electronics industry article is just currently out of scope and tries to back this up with the unsupported claim "electronics industry, especially meaning consumer electronics". That two stubb/start class articles on related topics happen to have almost identical contents reflects the poor initial quality of these articles, not the ultimate scope corresponding to title that we should be aiming at. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 16:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
How should we represent individual products or classes of products in this article? FOr examples, we could talk egenrally about personal audio devices, but the importance of the Walkman and iPod probably also warrant a mention. It would be easy to include a list of notable consumer electronics, but it might be easier to include a generic writeup and forward people to the relevant category, or a preexisting list article. --NickPenguin(contribs) 15:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Individual products can be used as examples to illustrate prose. Any lists would be either severely incomplete or overly exhaustive. I can't see a list of 'notable' consumer electronics being anything but irrelevant; if some item is important then it should be included in prose and with context. Eg.
"Walkman popularized the idea of a portable audio player, while the iPod connected online music retail with portable devices"
I'm a Finnish translator but I don't find the Finnish page particularly good. I might check it for things we may have overlooked, but in that case I'd rather dig out a proper source than go through the process of translating unsourced material. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 13:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Don't have time to look at them at the moment so will leave them here and will hopefully get back to them.
I also noticed several pages linked to multiple times, most often from within the history section, as far as I am aware this is incorrect and only the first instance should be tagged. Also, there appears to be a higher than normal number of redirect pages linked. CSJJ104 (talk) 09:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Have now removed tag template as does not seem appropriate to me. CSJJ104 (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
There were some left (identified with linkclassifier) and I have fixed them. Most of them would have resulted in further duplicate links within the section. I fixed quite a bit of duplicates, too. CSJJ104 is right about fixing those (WP:REPEATLINK). Redirects, however, are just fine (WP:NOTBROKEN). Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 13:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I copied the content from about 1888 on from the German wiki, and I just linked whatever words were linked in that article, without checking where they went. --NickPenguin(contribs) 13:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
linkclassifier looks like a useful tool, thanks for mentioning it Finnusertop :) CSJJ104 (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Do with this what you will. Just did a quick search of Google news, books, scholar etc, and posted a lot of promising links to save you guys the trouble. :)--Coin945 (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Support but I have some doubts about the qualtiy of the machine translation. The terminology needs to be checked line by line and then it all needs to be put into prose.--Melody Lavender (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Support. I don't have a problem with the use of a condensed list format in the timeline for this article, as they're easy to read and obtain a general summary from. However, I also don't oppose a conversion to prose formatting, if anyone wants to perform this. A merge to Timeline of electrical and electronic engineering is fine for the bulk of the content. It will definitely take some time and significant work to reformat content to fit the table at the merge target, though. NorthAmerica1000 23:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Support agreed, per above. ///EuroCarGT 02:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
A look at each item in both lists reveals a few date discrepancies discrepancy, invention of the triode and invention of the iconoscope, but otherwise both lists are completely different. If it wasn't the case that one was a table and the other in text form it would be an easy merge. --NickPenguin(contribs) 05:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Alternative to merge. We should move the material to the talkpage over at Timeline of electrical and electronic engineering instead of merging. There are three rationales for this: 1) The material is unsourced and therefor better as reference material to help editors determine how to expand that article. 2) As NickPenguin said, the source and target articles use different forms and as such a merger would take considerable effort. 3) There is a comment from February 2014 at the talkpage of Timeline of electrical and electronic engineering suggesting that that article is already out of scope and should be split; adding more material now would be unhelpful to that end. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 19:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment I am afraid the two lists don't exactly overlap each other and merging may cause loss of some information. I prefer to leave them as they are. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Support split. This would work out better, and would become a valid, workable WP:SPINOUT of this article. Struck the "Support" in my comment above. NorthAmerica1000 01:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Support splitting as what NickPenguin stated. The history section is a bit long and moving it to a separate article is ideal. ///EuroCarGT 20:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Translation Google "translations" aka Google garble are worse than nothing. So I've commented out the machine translated part of the second section. The Google garble in the first section has been edited many times, but still, it absolutely has to be reviewed by someone who speaks German. It's a technical text. Another alternative would be to keep only the most obvious and important points and simply delete the rest. Also, I will not be able to revise the whole thing in the near future. --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that was an error on my part. I really thought that the collaboration would be an exception to that rule, but the reality was it not. In hindsight it should have been translated bit by bit, so I apologize for that. --NickPenguin(contribs) 13:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Support split. But please make sure it has some sources so that it doesn't have to be nominated for deletion straight away. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 15:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
That is a good point, without sources a new article would be deleted rather quickly. With that in mind, I am at a loss with what to do with this content, fact checking each item would be very time consuming. I am actually surprised it is permitted on DeWiki, they are usually very strict about content. I would hate to remove potentially good content, but perhaps it is better gone? I am thinking about the advice contained here. --NickPenguin(contribs) 17:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Rather than deleting, it could be moved to an article talk page (my original "alternative to merge"), userified or moved to draft namespace. The advantage of all these namespaces (talk, user, draft) other than article is that they don't have notability and source requirements. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 22:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
In my experience, those are sometimes, but not always, soft deletions. However in this case, they would probably be preferable. I think the talk page or draft would be the best solution, userfying would likely cause the content to get lost. --NickPenguin(contribs) 23:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Much of the article, and almost all the timeline, is generally about the history of electronics rather than specifically that of consumer goods. We have other articles on electronics, which are the right places for such matters. Jim.henderson (talk) 11:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)