Talk:CobraNet/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Good Article!

I used the criteria at "Wikipedia:What is a good article?" to evaluate the article. I feel that it meets the criteria.

Note that the "retrieved" dates in the references are red links. I'm not sure how to fix these. -Arch dude 20:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the retrieved dates in the references section. The dates were just in the wrong format (didn't have a leading 0 for the month, i.e. 2007-3-19 instead of 2007-03-19). Thanks. Snottywong 23:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

archived fac

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cobranet/archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

CobraNet 0, 1, 2

Hey Snottywong, what's with the insistence on documenting different genres of CobraNet? Sure, before the technology was fully commercialized, we installed a few boxes that won't interoperate with current CobraNet. I don't consider that wrinkle relevant to the Wikipedia audience. The protocol running on the first CobraNet products (QSC RAVE) ever shipped is compatible with CobraNet as it currently exists. Since first shipments, new features and bug fixes have been introduced in an interoperable and backwards compatible manner. The genres of CobraNet perspective was never advanced by Peak Audio or Cirrus Logic. The only reference where I've seen the 0, 1, 2 designations is in some very early articles written by Michael Karagosian.--Kvng (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The reference to different Cobranet version is in the History section of the article. It wasn't meant to distinguish these different early versions as being incompatible with one another. I thought it was an efficient way to differentiate the stages of Cobranet's early development for the reader. Is there a particular reason you insist on the exclusion of Cobranet 0, 1, and 2? Snottywong (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Even in the history section, I don't see how the inclusion of this material helps the reader understand the topic. I believe my edits are in consistent with recent GA Sweeps suggestions --Kvng (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Cobranet vs. CobraNet

The correct capitalization is CobraNet. Does anyone know how to tweak page name to get this correct? I've tried moving Cobranet -> CobraNet but it is not allowed. --Kvng (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Kvng, I agree with you. I tried moving and got the same result. I believe it is because there is already an article named CobraNet (a page which redirects here). I've added a speedy deletion tag to the redirect page in an attempt to temporarily get rid of it and allow us to move the article there. Thanks. Snottywong (talk) 21:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't bother with it, guys. Wikipedia's policy on trademarks is to make each company name and each product look as much like an English word as possible—to get rid of unusual capitalization and unique usage of punctuation. Read it here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). Binksternet (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops! A quick re-read of the guide turns up the note that it is editor's choice whether to use a second capital letter (CamelCase) within a trademark name. Binksternet (talk) 21:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Article moved. Snottywong (talk) 02:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

• "CobraNet was first demonstrated as a proprietary system for Disney ...". Should that not be to Disney? edited --Kvng (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• "For instance, audio routing changes can be made in seconds from software, and do not require any rewiring." From software? reworded --Kvng (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Using gigabit and/or fiber optic Ethernet variants, even greater economies can be achieved for large systems." Even greater economies than what? reworded --Kvng (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• "The name ... was approved by Peak Audio's president, a car racing enthusiast. This eventually led to a Shelby Cobra making an appearance at the Peak Audio booth at a Las Vegas trade show." Is this really notable? removed paragraph --Kvng (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Because private bundles are associated with the transmitters there is no hard liming on the number private bundles." What's "liming"? fixed typo --Kvng (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• I am most concerned about the Hardware and software section, which appears to be largely a product listing. Wikipedia is not a directory. This section needs to be dramatically cut back to make it encyclopedic. This section also begins with a deleted image. Deleted image removed, external links removed, NavFrames set to be collapsed by default. SnottyWong talk 14:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Future plans is far too small for a stand-alone section, and the citation does not support the claim made about Gigabit Ethernet. This ought to be included in a revamped Hardware and software section. section removed --Kvng (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are being addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

As these issues remain outstanding I am now delisting this article. Once they are addressed it may be remoninated atWP:GAN. If you disagre with my decision, then it can be challenged at WP:GAR. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

C --> B --> GA

Not sure how this article got rated at a C, seeing as how it was a former GA. I'm going to take it back to a B. It looks like most of the GA-sweeps comments have been dealt with, with the exception of the list of manufacturers that use CobraNet at the bottom of the article. I think that once that issue is dealt with, we could re-list for GA and see what happens. Any suggestions on how to deal with that section? Snottywong (talk) 23:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I just edited the lists so that the NavFrames are collapsed by default. I also removed all of the external links and provided internal links to the different companies (if they exist). That should help wikify this section a little bit more than it was. Any other suggestions? Snottywong (talk) 23:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the intro could use some work, particularly the third paragraph, although I'm not sure what to do. Does anyone think the third paragraph is even necessary? It seems to just be obtusely summarizing the information in the Advantages & Disadvantages section. Snottywong (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

GA Comment

I just wanted to drop a comment here that the GA nomination has not been completed correctly, as there is no template at the top of this page. This needs to be added so that potential reviewers know that the article is still up for review. See the top of the GAN page for instructions. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I must have forgotten that step. Template has been added. SnottyWong talk 01:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

• "CobraNet was first demonstrated as a proprietary system for Disney ...". Should that not be to Disney? edited --Kvng (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• "For instance, audio routing changes can be made in seconds from software, and do not require any rewiring." From software? reworded --Kvng (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Using gigabit and/or fiber optic Ethernet variants, even greater economies can be achieved for large systems." Even greater economies than what? reworded --Kvng (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• "The name ... was approved by Peak Audio's president, a car racing enthusiast. This eventually led to a Shelby Cobra making an appearance at the Peak Audio booth at a Las Vegas trade show." Is this really notable? removed paragraph --Kvng (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Because private bundles are associated with the transmitters there is no hard liming on the number private bundles." What's "liming"? fixed typo --Kvng (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• I am most concerned about the Hardware and software section, which appears to be largely a product listing. Wikipedia is not a directory. This section needs to be dramatically cut back to make it encyclopedic. This section also begins with a deleted image. Deleted image removed, external links removed, NavFrames set to be collapsed by default. SnottyWong talk 14:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Future plans is far too small for a stand-alone section, and the citation does not support the claim made about Gigabit Ethernet. This ought to be included in a revamped Hardware and software section. section removed --Kvng (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are being addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

As these issues remain outstanding I am now delisting this article. Once they are addressed it may be remoninated atWP:GAN. If you disagre with my decision, then it can be challenged at WP:GAR. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

I created a new infobox and added it to this article. I'll try to get it added to the rest of the existing Audio over Ethernet articles in the next few days. The template is {{Infobox AoE}}. It's the first template I've ever made. Any comments or suggestions? SnottyWong talk 21:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure on network speed and maximum channels whether we're talking about interface capability or network capability. The highest capacity commercially available CobraNet interface is 32 in, 32 out (64 total) and connects via 100 Mbit Ethernet. A 100 Mbit uplink from a switch can carry 64 channels each direction (128 total). CobraNet is happy to pass through 1 Gbit and 10 Gbit uplinks and those links will respectively carry hundreds and thousands of channels each direction. --Kvng (talk) 07:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

My intention was to show the interface capability, as that is the more relevant and useful info. Even if a CobraNet signal is passing through a 10 Gig switch, it's still being sent and received at 100 Mbit (but you're right that the network can handle a lot more bundles). Until Gigabit Cobranet is actually released into a commercially available product, I don't think we should list it as being a 1Gig protocol. Do you think the "max channels per link" label should be re-worded? SnottyWong talk 13:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I've updated your template documentation to reflect what you've stated here --Kvng (talk) 05:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Low Latency

Can someone clear up for me how this technology is both low-latency (according to the article lead-in), and high-latency (according to the disadvantages)? Besides that, the cost disadvantage section makes it sound like the reduced cabling costs offset the price of the equipment -- is that true or does it just need to be reworded? Besides, if this is a 14-year-old technology, you would think that somebody has to have figured out how to make a low cost device? If nobody knows/has time to answer those questions, I'll look into it and make the edits myself. I figured it'd probably be better to offer it up to the community first, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperJerms (talk • contribs) 20:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The Disadvantages section doesn't say anything about CobraNet having "high latency". It simply says that for some applications, the latency incurred by using CobraNet can be unacceptable. Whether or not latency is high or low is a relative, subjective statement. In most cases, a latency of 1.333 milliseconds (which is equal to the time it takes sound to travel about 18 inches through air) is imperceptibly low and does not cause any problems. However, in real-life situations, the latency can grow to be much higher for a number of reasons:

• The system might use the 5.333 ms latency instead of 1.333 ms.
• The audio signal might pass through multiple CobraNet links before it reaches its destination, incurring the 5.333 ms latency over each link.
• Commonly, the audio signal will be processed by a DSP, which will incur a significant amount of additional latency.

For instance, a signal from a mic gets converted to CobraNet (5.33 ms latency), processed by a DSP (20 ms latency), sent out as CobraNet and converted back to analog at the amplifier (5.33 ms latency). At that point we've got 30.66 ms of latency (the time it takes audio to travel about 34 feet through air). In the majority of cases, 30 ms of latency will be perfectly acceptable. However, in applications like in-ear monitoring, it is distracting to hear yourself in your in-ear monitor 30 milliseconds behind hearing yourself directly (or hearing your guitar in your in-ear monitor 30 milliseconds after you've strummed your guitar). In these specialized cases, CobraNet (usually in combination with other devices) can add enough latency to be unacceptable. This is a disadvantage to analog audio, which has virtually no latency (except for the fact that electricity might only travel at 80% of the speed of light through an analog cable, resulting in a microsecond (i.e. 1/1000th of a millisecond) of latency over an 800 foot analog cable).

To sum up, CobraNet is considered "low latency" in comparison to, for instance, an audio-over-Internet streaming protocol that has a latency of several seconds. However, even this "low latency" can be too high for demanding applications. I don't think the article requires any clarification. SnottyWong talk 22:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

20 ms of latency for DAC? That seems like an awful lot. Just a random google for DAC latency, I find a 32-bit chip that has a 7 sample latency. Cirrus' site says that you might introduce up to a dozen or two samples. 24 samples would be, what, .5 ms?

Since the sound doesn't need to be processed into an encoded format or anything that would take serious processing time, unacceptable latency sounds like more of an issue from outside of the cobranet process. I mean, just to pop analog into a digital signal, and throw it across the network to a DAC wouldn't take more than 6ms, right? Seems like you'd be able to convert, transmit, convert, transmit, etc. and not hit audible latency until you arrive at the fourth device. And that's worst-case.

I was confused originally because on my first read-through it sounded like unacceptable latency was a given. But now I'm gathering that it's an issue that was prevalent early on, but now can usually be designed around using modern hardware. Isn't it a bit like saying, "A disadvantage to the personal computer is that outdated PCs may incur unacceptable latency in certain applications." Sure, it's true that old PCs might not run modern software, but that's not an inherent technological limitation, it's the consequence of using dated equipment.

And also, I'm still not clear on the cost issue. I see from Googling that you could spend $3k on some equipment, but if that's still less than the hardware and labor to use non-Cobranet equipment (and/or if there are newer products that don't cost so much), then why is it a disadvantage? SuperJerms (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• I never said that 20 ms of latency would be incurred just for digital to analog conversion. I said that frequently when CobraNet is used, the audio will be processed by a DSP processor somewhere along the line. 20 ms of latency in DSP processing is not uncommon. It's true that this process happens outside of the scope of CobraNet, but I would estimate that 95% of the time there is some DSP processing available for the audio that is being transmitted over CobraNet. It just makes sense to digitally process the audio while it is already in digital form. Also, even if there is not any DSP processing, four CobraNet hops at the maximum latency setting would get you to 21.33 ms of latency, not 6 ms. I never said (and the article doesn't say) that the use of CobraNet always results in unacceptable delays. I simply said that it contributes towards delays which, in some circumstances, can be problematic. If you compare the latency of CobraNet to the latency of analog audio (i.e. zero), then I think listing it as a disadvantage is fair.

Similarly, if you compare the cost of transmitting CobraNet audio to the cost of transmitting analog audio (i.e. zero), then it is also fair to say that cost can be a disadvantage as well. Depending on the cable length, channel count, difficulty of the wire pull, etc., this additional cost might be partially or completely nullified by the corresponding cabling cost advantages. There is, of course, no additional transmitter/reciever hardware required to transmit analog audio, and therefore the additional cost required for CobraNet can be a disadvantage.

If neither latency nor cost was ever a disadvantage, then CobraNet would be far more ubiquitous than it is today, and it would likely be flowing all throughout your house right now. But, it's not because the transmitters/receivers would cost you a couple thousand dollars. It's really quite simple. I don't understand why you're having such a hard time with this. SnottyWong talk 00:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Very much related to latency is the unspecified filtering processes which may or may not be applied. If I specify a normal amount of equalization, compression and limiting, high-pass or low-pass filtering, and routing or mixing in a pro audio DSP, I get between 2 and 7 milliseconds of delay, depending on how many processes are strung together. I also get the normal amount of phase shift associated with equalization and filtering. Others wishing for an output free of phase shift versus frequency may implement specialist finite impulse response (FIR) filters which require something like 20–30 ms of analysis of the incoming audio signal before the output signal is ready to be sent onward. In that case, latency is a conscious part of the processing choice, not a problem associated with CobraNet. Binksternet (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that Binksternet's last sentence there is what I'm angling at. If the latency occurs outside of the scope of CobraNet, in the DSP, this article doesn't read that way. The article makes it sound like the Cobranet+ADC+DAC is what creates the audible latency. DSP isn't even mentioned in the article until the graphic (which says it's optional) and the list of manufacturers. And, if you're just doing simple stuff like gain, compression, limiting and equalizing , it's probably achievable in the same device that does the ADC (it looks like are several tools that do just that), so it has low overhead. And, if the DSP is completely removed, you could have < 2ms latency.

Snottywong, you've obviously spent a lot of time on this article, so I didn't want to come in, be bold, and mess up a good article. The DAC/ADC latency struck me as odd, so I thought I'd be good to have a discussion about it. Really, if DSP is the cause of the latency, then isn't that a conscious design decision that should be addressed in a DSP article and linked to from this one? It could be something like:

"Latency: Delays over CobraNet transmission medium itself can vary from 2-6 milliseconds for each connection. Many applications take advantage of CobraNet's digitized audio by applying external digital signal processing, which can increase the latency by up to 20ms. Any combined latency above 15-20ms can present an unacceptable audio delay for certain live applications (e.g. stage monitors for singers)."

SuperJerms (talk) 16:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

CobraNet has higher latency compared to some of the other digital audio interconnects such as MADI, AES50 and EtherSound. The cost of the interface circuitry remains relatively high because volumes in commercial audio applications where this technology is applied are not particularly high. --Kvng (talk) 04:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I really have no barometer on the cost. Was just wondering to what extent moore's law plus the decreased installation cost (compared to, say, the equipment/install/troubleshooting of trying to patch in a new line to an existing multi-channel application) mitigates the higher cost of Cobranet equipment (i.e. didn't know how much weight Cirrus' sales pitch carries). SuperJerms (talk) 16:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I fully understand all of the points being brought up, but I still think that DSP processing has to be taken into consideration. Any reasonably sophisticated audio system (digital or analog) will have the ability to process the audio somewhere along the line. A purely analog audio system will use outboard EQ's, compressors, filters, etc. The latency through this processing equipment will generally be limited to the phase shift induced by certain filters, which is sub-millisecond and frequency dependent. A digital audio system using CobraNet will have the same processing capabilities, however it will suffer from at least an additional order of magnitude of latency both as a result of CobraNet itself (1.33-5.33 ms per CobraNet hop) and as a result of the processing on the audio (anywhere from around 5 to 50+ ms). The processing is, admittedly, separate from CobraNet and not technically required. However, in audio systems that employ CobraNet, the overall system latency is going to be higher than just the CobraNet latency in 99.9% of the cases. I guess the Advantages/Disadvantages section is more about the advantages/disadvantages of CobraNet-enabled systems versus analog systems. Latency is certainly a disadvantage with respect to analog audio systems, but perhaps a minor rewording of the latency bullet point is in order, since technically the use of CobraNet alone is not likely to create delays that are "unacceptable" in realistic situations. SnottyWong talk 23:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I tweaked the latency section. Let me know if you think that sounds better. SnottyWong talk 23:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that sounds a bit clearer, though I think we could still be more explicit and informative (uneducated readers don't have a frame of reference for what level of latency is significant). I've made an edit there.

Also, since the disadvantage is more of a larger system issue, it seems like the gigabit ethernet reference would make more sense in the body of the article. I'm going to move it down to the latency section.

Actually, now that I look at the latency section, it's almost verbatim from the Logic website. I think it'd be prudent to differentiate it just to make sure we're copyright-safe. I'll go ahead and take a crack at it.

SuperJerms (talk) 15:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

SuperJerms: no offense, but I reverted your edits. In your quest to make the article an easier read for uneducated readers, you inadvertently added some inaccuracies and inconsistencies (and, in my opinion, made it harder to read in some cases). In particular:

• You changed the statement that every device hop incurs 2-6 ms of latency, when it is actually 1.333-5.333 ms. Actually, to be more specific, there can be only 3 different latencies: 1.333, 2.667, or 5.333 ms. If we know the exact value, there is no reason to reduce the accuracy of the article by rounding it up or down. Rounding doesn't make the article "easier to read", it just makes it less accurate.
• You implied that the above-mentioned 2-6 ms of latency is caused by a combination of "system-set" latency (whatever that is), and A-D / D-A conversion. In reality, the latency above is only caused by buffering of the data while it is in digital form. The latency incurred by A-D and D-A conversion is added to the 1.333-5.333 ms of CobraNet latency.
• You attempted to provide a frame of reference for what amount of latency is disruptive or unacceptable. However, there is no specific cutoff point where latency suddenly becomes unacceptable. It's highly dependent on the application. For instance, phase-aligning two loudspeakers could require two signals to be synchronized to 1 ms or less. In contrast, some applications are ok with 50-80 ms of time difference between two signals (for instance, affecting localization via the Precedence effect). To give a range of 15-20 ms as the threshold of unacceptability is only accurate for a small subset of the applications in which CobraNet is used.

I appreciate your efforts to increase the readability of the article, but first and foremost, please be sure that any information you add is accurate. Keep in mind that this article is GA, so it is understood to have already attained a certain level of readability (although no one is claiming that it is perfect or not improvable), and large changes to the wording should be well thought-out, lest we run the risk of losing the GA status. If you still think that certain sections are unreadable, let's discuss potential ways to improve them here and come to a consensus before making large changes. SnottyWong talk 18:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, no offense taken. I agree fully about wanting to keep things accurate; it's why I started this conversation in the first place. Just to give you a quick explanation behind my reasoning for the changes:

• I guess I'm not completely following your first two points there. First you noted that the buffering latency in a CobraNet device can be configured (one might even consider this to be "setting" dictated by the "system" configuration) at either 1.3ms, 2.667ms, 5.3ms. Then, you noted that A-D & D-A conversion latency is additional and added to the configured setting. We talked about the specifics of DAC/ADC conversion on this talk page, and I'm under the impression that there's a dozen or so samples for that, depending on the specific chips used. So, putting your two points together, 1.3 + 20 or so samples = roughly 2ms. Unless I misunderstood your second point, the cumulative latency will be imprecise because of the variable efficiency of DAC/ADC.
• So, if the ADC/DAC conversion adds a variable amount of delay, is it more informative to say, "1.3-5.3ms + further delays" (current article), or to say "roughly 2ms-6ms, depending on DAC/ADC time"? Since the audio conversion is mandatory, I lean towards the latter of the two. As for the question of precision, there's a whole latency section later in the article that addresses the specifics settings and associated data implications. For the advantages/disadvantages, it seems more helpful to the layman to get the big picture.
• Also for the sake of the layman, I like to use frames of reference when they make sense. Technology and philosophy articles often seem to gravitate towards technical language that is less accessible to the everyman, and wikipedia is not a tech reference (WP:NOT). So, my bent is always to be accurate while still giving enough context for the layman to be able to understand. I gather that the majority of CobraNet applications are live sound, and the average joe would likely understand the context of what's audible to the human ear, so I went with that. If that's too narrow a subset, I'd still love to see some sort of appropriate context. Otherwise, readers might say, "5.3ms, 20ms, is that good or bad?"
• However you want to phrase the latency section, it still seems prudent to differentiate it from the Cirrus Logic website. It seems a little to close duplicating their materials (see my link from earlier).

Anyway, I've got a somewhat crazy week ahead, so I'll have to come back to this sometime after Labor day. I tend to have a short attention span on revising articles, so I'll stay on the talk page. If you have strong feelings about what should or shouldn't change on the live article, I'll leave it to you, snottywong. SuperJerms (talk) 00:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I see where you were going with that. I think I misunderstood the wording you chose, which led me to believe you were rounding the latency and lumping the DAC/ADC in with the CN latency. In any case, my opinion is that we should state the CN latency in its exact terms (since it is the only relevant latency that we know exactly) and mention the other common contributors to the overall latency in a general way (since they are not technically caused by CobraNet, and they are quite variable depending on the application). This is what I have tried to do with the current wording: I mention the CN latency with exact numbers, but then I leave numbers out of it when talking about the rest of the latency contributors. I just want to mention that they exist, and that they have the potential of causing unacceptable situations (thus explaining why this is a disadvantage). You may have a point that the Gigabit CobraNet sentence should move to the main section on latency rather than the advantages/disadvantages. Although, the chances that Gigabit CobraNet actually gets developed and released by Cirrus are virtually nil at this point, so the point may be moot.

Also, I'm not sure I follow you about the point that the main latency section appears to be copied off of Cirrus' website. I took a look at the link you provided but couldn't see any word-for-word similarities. Can you point out specifically what you see as too close of a copy? SnottyWong talk 01:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Fractions

Not loving the change from decimal milliseconds to fractions. Binksternet (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Fractions are good here because they are exact. Default latency is 256 samples / 48 KHz sample rate = 5+1⁄3 ms. 5.33 ms is only an approximation. --Kvng (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

That was my logic too. What don't you like about them? Do they not show up correctly in your browser? They look great in my browser.. SnottyWong talk 20:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

They appear perfectly in Firefox, my browser. I just don't like them because I associate fractions with kitchen quantities and decimals with engineering work. ^_^

Binksternet (talk) 21:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

New Link

Hey, just wanted to jump in here before I made any changes (since I know that you folks want are pretty focused on its quality), but I came across an article on CobraNet from one of the chip manufacturers, and I thought might be a good contribution to the article. It's a bit easier to understand for the layman, but is still written from an solid understanding of the technology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperJerms (talk • contribs) 17:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

What's the link? SnottyWong ^verbalize 17:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see you've added it already. I don't have a problem with it. Although, it does claim that you can send video over CobraNet, which really is not true. In theory, you could send video over smoke signals too, but that's obviously not efficient or practical, nor is it what CobraNet (or smoke signals) was ever intended to be used for. SnottyWong ^confabulate 17:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Maximum channels per link

The listing of Maximum channels per link in the infobox at the top of the page is incorrect and misleading. It appears that the limitations of the CM-1 card have been listed as limitations of the CobraNet protocol. For example: DeviceA transmits 4 multicast bundles. DeviceB transmits 4 unicast bundles to DeviceC. DeviceC transmits 4 unicast bundles to DeviceD. How many bundles are on the link between DeviceC and the switch? The answer is 12. There are 4 unicast being transmitted by DeviceC, 4 unicast being received by DeviceC, and 4 multicast being ignored by DeviceC. Those 4 multicast bundles may be ignored by the hardware, but they are still on the link to DeviceC. They're still transmitted by the switch to DeviceC even if DeviceC is ignoring them. The maximum number of bundles per link is critically important information for a system designer who is balancing the requirements of multicast and unicast bundles on the same network and "32x32" is not an accurate answer.

The spec of 32 channels in and 32 channels out applies only to one specific piece of CobraNet hardware. Using different hardware from Cirrus, a manufacturer can create a device that is only capable of transmitting and receiving 1 bundle. That doesn't mean that CobraNet is only 8x8. It just means that particular device is only 8x8. Alternately, again using hardware from Cirrus, a manufacturer can easily create a device that can simultaneously transmit and receive 8 bundles with 8 channels in each bundle. The fact that no manufacturer (as far as I know) has bothered to do it, doesn't change the fact that it would be trivially easy to design and manufacture such a device. The true CobraNet protocol limitation when using a Fast Ethernet link is 8 bundles in each direction. If the infobox is for CobraNet, it should reflect that fact. If the infobox is for the CM-1 card, then the infobox should be changed to indicate that it is only referring to the CM-1 card and not to the protocol in general. Dan 76.23.122.235 (talk) 13:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

64 channels each direction is correct for 100 Mb Ethernet uplink. CobraNet does support gigabit and 10 gigabit uplinks between switches. Channel counts there are much larger. Template:Infobox AoE defines this field as Maximum number of channels per interface, i.e. maximum number of channels that can travel over the cable from the network to the audio interface device (best-case scenario). Since, to my knowledge, there is no interface with higher capacity than the CM-1 we put the CM-1 capacity here. If you feel this is not the best way to measure capacity, please discuss at Template talk:Infobox AoE --Kvng (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

challenges

For transparency, I am making these challenges in response to the article being cited by another editor at WP:ANI, here.

1. Using the name of the product is promotional. Equivalents that do not include the name should be used.
2. Hidden boxes are deprecated for accessibility reasons, and should not be used.
3. Are ALL manufacturers of compatible products listed in the boxes? If so, on what evidence? Presumably the company's statement?
4. In the lede, the sentence "CobraNet is an attractive alternative to analog audio, which suffers from signal degradation over long cable runs due to electromagnetic interference, high-frequency attenuation, and voltage drop." is promotional. Rather , all modern forms of digital audio are superior to analog audio, which inherently suffers from signal degradation. However, even so it is misleading, because the signal degradation can be compensated for, in principle to an extent that is equal to digital. The following sentence, about digital multiplexing, is also common to all or most digital audio.
5. In the "Advantages section, some of these advantages are common to all digital audio systems, some depend on particular characteristics of this product', "well designed network" , in neither intrinsic nor unique to the product, and will apply only if the product is expertly used.
6. forthcoming DGG ( talk ) 20:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The prose needs some checking too, viz "CobraNet is an attractive alternative...", sorry. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

i.e. we need an objective word, "popular", "highly regarded", "critically acclaimed" are all objective if backed by reliable secondary sources. "Attractive" too subjective here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

This isn't the way to challenge GA status; you need to go to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. Nyttend (talk) 10:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Started reading through, there is some fluffy language that should be tightened up/made more NPOV. This was promoted as a GA several years ago, so the change of standards over time might have caused some format/template issues. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

List of manufacturers

Moved from my talk page [1]

Your removal on CobraNet:

You recently removed an entire section on the CobraNet article. It is a list of manufacturers that have licensed the CobraNet technology, and you believe that that list constitutes an advertisement. I disagree with you. It is simply a list of manufacturers that employ this technology, and therefore it is no more of an advertisement than List of Delaware companies. There is no promotion going on here. That list has been in the article since it was created more than 8 years ago. The article attained GA status with that list included. I'm going to revert your removal of this section again, and reinstate the section. If you still believe that it is an advertisement, please start a discussion to find a consensus before removing this longstanding section from the article. Thanks. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 16:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry that I didn't start a discussion right away.

Consensus can change, and the consensus on how we handle promotion, conflicts of interest, etc in Wikipedia has changed rather dramatically. As I pointed out, I don't see a single source that demonstrates that this isn't anything other than WP:SOAP.

I routinely remove such sections from articles, and I have yet to see any remain after discussion. I think there is strong and wide consensus that such sections simply don't belong. I see absolutely no discussion of the relevant policies on this talk, and no efforts to ensure that wide consensus was being taken into account at all. --Ronz (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you give us some specific examples, recent conversations or other references regarding this dramatic change in consensus? ~Kvng (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Nothing dramatic nor recent about it. Looks more like a case of WP:CONLIMITED to me.

The only thing dramatic and recent that could apply are the changes to WP:COI, but I'm not aware of coi-editing here. However, the principles repeated in the recent ArbCom cases involving coi editing (many of which have been covered in international news) are worth reviewing. Pick any case I expect you'll see an emphasis on following NPOV and using quality sources. Of course, these have been emphasized in our policies and guidelines for a very long time, but perhaps they were overlooked in 2008-09. --Ronz (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Above in your original response to Scottywong you claim that "the consensus on how we handle promotion, conflicts of interest, etc in Wikipedia has changed rather dramatically." This is not something I'm aware of so I requested backing. Instead we get a lesson on WP:COI but you start off by saying you're not aware of a COI issue here. So far, this has not been a consensus-building discussion. ~Kvng (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Struck it out. I'm aware of at least some of the COI problems here now as well, so CONLIMITED and COI problems. --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ronz: can we please work this out before removing the disputed list? Your removal has now been revered three times by two different experienced editors (myself and Scottywong) and you've immediately restored each time. Let's, for now, put the article back to how it has been for years and finish this discussion. ~Kvng (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I see no policy-based reasoning to keep the list. I've copied the section below. --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I think restoring would help de escalate this disagreement and allow us work together more effectively towards consensus. ~Kvng (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I rather we WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I and at least one other prefer we restore the content while we discuss. Restore would help us focus on content since the content would be directly visible in the current version of article. In any case, it is too cumbersome to keep it here on the talk page. I have deleted from here. ~Kvng (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Now I realize there are coi problems here. Could you please follow WP:COI and declare your interest formally as required? --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done I've had no direct financial interest in CobraNet since November 2006.

So far you've given only anecdotal and general justification for removing the list of manufacturers. Can you reference some policy or recent discussions demonstrating the consensus you claim exists on this issue? ~Kvng (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for declaring your COI.

Yes, the general justification should be enough: violations of NPOV, OR, V. No one is disagreeing still. As I noted when I first removed it over two years ago, it's advertising - meaning it is a violation of WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV. When I removed it more recently, I noted there was "no source demonstrating it is anything other than SOAP", again referring to WP:SOAP as well as the quality of the sources. You'll recall from my comment above that the ArbCom principles that led to the changes in WP:COI included NPOV and quality of sources. It's not that these principles only apply when there is a coi, and even if there wasn't coi-editing going on here these principles are the basis for determining whether or not the content is neutral and encyclopedic.

So, in addition to the policies that I previously referred to, I'm now noting that much of the material appears unsourced (WP:V), and the listing includes non-notable entries (a further NPOV violation). --Ronz (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

We don't need to delete the whole section to fix WP:V problems, we can just delete unsupported entries. What part of WP:SOAP is at issue here? Point 5 seems most connected to your complaints but I don't see a specific problem here and I assume that wholesale deletion is not the only way to fix it. ~Kvng (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. As I said, this is routine cleanup for me. If there's even one source that demonstrates any of it belongs, please point it out, knowing that it needs to be reliable and independent, preferably secondary. --Ronz (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• I don't see how a simple list of manufacturers constitutes an advertisement. Advertisement involves promotion; an attempt to persuade someone to buy a product. CobraNet is not a standalone technology. You can't use CobraNet on its own, using only devices manufactured by Cirrus Logic (the owner of CobraNet). You must use products manufactured by third-party manufacturers that have licensed CobraNet. This article simply contains a bare list of the manufacturers that have licensed CobraNet and used it in their products. The list is sourced to an authoritative list by Cirrus Logic ([2]). I simply don't see any problem with this list, and I can't see any reason that it violates any Wikipedia policies or guidelines. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 23:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

  Could you please review WP:COI and make any necessary declarations so we can get the COI problems out of the way? --Ronz (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you please do as you've requested of others and focus on the content? I asked earlier what part of WP:SOAP you think is being violated here and you deflected and cited other policies. Your claim that removals like this are "routine" for you does not help your case unless you can point to discussions with other editors in similar situations where consensus for removal was demonstrated. ~Kvng (talk) 04:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

While I'm employed in an industry where CobraNet is frequently used, I do not have (and have never had) any financial connection to Cirrus Logic, and I do not have (and have never had) any financial interest in CobraNet. If CobraNet sales increased by a factor of 10 tomorrow, I would not see an extra penny in my paycheck. Regardless, CobraNet is increasingly seen as an obsolete technology in the industry, and has largely been replaced by other protocols like Dante and AVB. CobraNet is a legacy protocol at this point, and it does not generate significant revenue. There are very few people in the world who continue to have any significant financial interest in CobraNet, and that number continues to decrease.

Now, can we discuss the real issues at hand here? There are 2 editors who don't believe that a simple list of manufacturers constitutes an advertisement, and there is 1 editor who believes it is an advertisement. I believe it's time to reinstate the list, until such time that we get more people participating in the discussion (without running afoul of WP:CANVAS), or until such time that Ronz decides to express a convincing rationale that a bare list of manufacturers constitutes an advertisement. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 16:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing the COI problems. I apologise for the concerns. I hope you'll understand why I had them given your first edits were all to this article, you've retired from Wikipedia, you're in dispute about routine cleanup done due to coi-editing here, and it turns out that the other editor involved in this dispute has a definite coi.

This is not a vote. I've pointed out WP:CONLIMITED. Please don't ignore it.

I have also pointed out that this is a problem that repeatedly comes up at ArbCom where COI-violating editing is involved. The principles are NPOV and quality of sources. Anyone want to address those principles? If not, then there's nothing more to discuss. --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you please expand on those perceived problems? Specifically, what about this list of manufacturers creates a non-neutral point of view? And specifically, which sources are problematic in your opinion, and why? Because from my perspective, there are no NPOV issues, no SOAP issues, and no problematic sourcing in the article.

Also, Kvng pointed out above that he has had no financial interest in CobraNet for nearly 10 years. Why are you continuing to allege that he has a "definite coi"? ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 18:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

As the inventor of CobraNet, Kvng has a definite coi. --Ronz (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

What needs expansion from "If there's even one source that demonstrates any of it belongs, please point it out, knowing that it needs to be reliable and independent, preferably secondary"? If there's none, it's not WP:DUE. If there's any encyclopedic value to it, provide an independent, reliable source that identifies that encyclopedic value, or point to some general consensus about similar content. --Ronz (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I think your interpretation of WP:NPOV is misguided. I could see that if this article had a partial list of manufacturers, which featured some manufacturers and not others, that could be a NPOV issue, and we could be giving undue weight to one manufacturer over another. As far as I know, the list of manufacturers in this article is complete (and if it's not, then the solution is to make it complete, not delete it). Therefore, there is no undue weight being given to any manufacturer. Are you asking for a source that demonstrates that the concept of a manufacturer that licenses CobraNet is notable in and of itself? What would such a source look like in your opinion, and what content would it need to include? Is this source not sufficient: http://cobranet.info/community/manufacturer Sure, it's a primary source, but primary sources are perfectly valid as long as we don't "analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material" within the source, which we're not doing in this case. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 20:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe that our policies and ArbCom rulings say otherwise, which I've already pointed out.

It has no encyclopedic value that I see, and no one has offered any. It certainly has value to the owner and manufacturers, but Wikipedia is not a venue for promotion.

So, I expect we are ready to move along in the dispute resolution process. While there might be a need at some point to iron out the COI problems here, I think we should focus on content. An RfC, or maybe NPOVN? --Ronz (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

So now Ronz wants to try a WP:UNDUE argument? Since after asking at least twice and receiving no direct response and receiving no direct response, do I assume that WP:SOAP is no longer under discussion? I have no intention of getting into an edit war here but I think it is reasonable for us to revert while Ronz figures out where he wants to next move the goalposts. ~Kvng (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Given your coi, you should be offering policy-based arguments for inclusion, rather than attacking me.

You think they are different arguments, but they are not. Rather they are multiple policies that all apply.

When the sources are nothing but press releases and the like, it's SOAP by definition. --Ronz (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Kvng should not be adding this, nor any similar material to the article per WP:COI. COIN discussion here. --Ronz (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Ronz, you're saying that the list of manufacturers "has no encyclopedic value". What are you basing that on? How do you know that it has no value? What would you need to see to be convinced that is has value? I would disagree, and say that it is actually rather valuable. You're not providing any concrete arguments to back up your claims about this list. ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 21:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm basing it on the sources, which is why I repeatedly bring them up. --Ronz (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll ask again, then: which specific source(s) are problematic in your view? Or, if there is a missing source, specifically what would that source need to include to satisfy you? I'm looking for specifics here. Please be as specific as you can. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 21:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

All of them, which is why I've repeatedly asked for better ones and why I wrote, "When the sources are nothing but press releases and the like, it's SOAP by definition." --Ronz (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Every source in the article is problematic to you? So, shouldn't you be starting an AfD then? ‑Scottywong| yak _ 22:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Primary sources (press releases, company web sites, etc.) are frequently used satisfy WP:V for non-controversial technical information. Scottywong mentioned this earlier. You may be thinking of the reliable source requirement for references used to establish notability of a topic. Notability of CobraNet is not at issue here. ~Kvng (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Correct, we're talking bout the "List of manufacturers" section and the sources in it.

The section is not "non-controversial technical information". There's quite a bit more about when and how primary sources are used properly. Basically, if there are no secondary sources for a section, we need to carefully look at NOT and NPOV before including it. --Ronz (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

What is controversial about a bare list of manufacturers that have licensed and used the technology described in the article? I've carefully looked at NOT and NPOV, and find no problems with the sourcing of this section. ‑Scottywong| confess _ 22:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

We disagree. --Ronz (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Is that the royal We, or is there actually someone other than you that agrees? Specifically, what about a bare list of manufacturers is controversial enough to require secondary sources? ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 22:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but the problem isn't that it's controversial (a sourced controversy of some kind). The problem is the sourcing indicates it's not encyclopedic and undue. You disagree. --Ronz (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The concept of notability does not apply to content within articles, it is only used to determine whether or not the subject of an article is worthy of an article. Primary sources aren't required to prove that every section and subsection within an article is notable. Primary sources are perfectly valid for verifying non-controversial information. There's nothing undue or non-neutral about a list of manufacturers, as long as that list is complete and does not favor one manufacturer above another. You can say things like "it's undue", "it's not encyclopedic", "it's non-neutral", "it's an advertisement", "it's not non-controversial", but unless you back up those statements with specific arguments for why or how it's undue/unencyclopedic/non-neutral/spammy, then your argument holds no weight. I've tried every way I can think of to extract this information from you (e.g., "what would a source need to look like to satisfy you?"), but I'm beginning to believe that the reason you're not backing up your statements with specific arguments or answering our questions is because you don't have an answer to the question. At this point, I'm going to add the list back into the article until such time that it can be demonstrated that consensus for inclusion of the list has changed. Again, this list has been included in the article since the beginning, and the article made it to GA twice with that list included. I think it's clear that consensus is currently on the side of keeping the list in the article. If you continue to revert, then we can escalate this issue to an edit warring noticeboard. This discussion can and should continue here, but I think it seems clear that you're not going to convince Kvng or I to change our minds at this point. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 23:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say WP:N applied. --Ronz (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Why else would you demand secondary sources? ‑Scottywong| yak _ 23:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

For the reasons I've given: The sources are poor. The sources are promotional in nature. The sources demonstrate no encyclopedic value for the content. --Ronz (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Primary sources are not disqualified from demonstrating the encyclopedic value of content. ‑Scottywong| express _ 02:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Once again, that's not my claim. Am claiming they demonstrate no encyclopedic value, and it would be nice to hear some policy-based response to that. --Ronz (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I would recommend starting an RfC if you'd like to pursue this further. I think it has become clear that Kvng and I are not going to agree with you on this, no matter how much we discuss it. ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 17:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The section has no independent sources, no secondary sources, 7 press releases, and the remaining 4 sources are self-published. Given the promotional nature of the material, and the violations of OR, NPOV, and V all due to the poor sourcing, the section should be removed. --Ronz (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

If we removed every section of every Wikipedia article that didn't have independent, secondary sources, the size of Wikipedia would probably be cut in half. These self-published/primary sources are not being used to make even remotely extraordinary claims. They are only being used to verify that the manufacturer does indeed use CobraNet in one or more of their products, or has used it in the past. In many cases, the source is being used to verify a single word in the article: the name of the company as it appears in the list of manufacturers. I'm sorry, but I think you're taking this a bit too far. ‑Scottywong| speak _ 01:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

"If we removed every..." No one is proposing that, so let's not waste time with it.

So we agree on what the policies say? How about we follow the policies? If you want to make a case for this being an exception to multiple policies, get consensus to do so. --Ronz (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

A note on external links

Please note that external links are not to be restored to an article while under dispute per WP:ELBURDEN. --Ronz (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

As there's yet no response, can I assume that this is not in dispute? --Ronz (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

No objection to your removing http://www.cobranet.info/community/manufacturer. Already a link there in ref #22. ~Kvng (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Can we do an RfC?

I would like to initiate a simple WP:RFC asking whether the manufacturer list should be removed. For the sake of objectivity, I propose to reset everything and restore the manufacturer list before announcing the RfC. If someone else would prefer to initiate the RfC, I'm fine with that. If you have objection to this plan, please propose your own. I don't think continuing the current discussion is a good plan. ~Kvng (talk) 23:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I already suggested an RfC. Looks like it is fine to do while we have the open WP:COIN discussion. --Ronz (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Examination of the sources and their use

The sourcing has been stable other than dead links, but for reference this version is being examined below. --Ronz (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

1. http://www.aes.org/technical/documents/AESTD1003V1.pdf

   At least one of the authors is an editor, Kvng. Looks fine as it is being used. --Ronz (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

2. http://mkpe.com/publications/theme_parks_&_systems/digitalaudiochain.php

   Self-published. --Ronz (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

3. https://web.archive.org/web/20120226042520/http://www.proaudio-central.com/Publications/Pro-Audio-Asia/Technology/856-/The-back-of-the-net

   Looks fine. The only source One of the few that is independent and secondary. --Ronz (talk) 00:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

4. http://www.mkpe.com/theme_parks/networks.php

   Self-published. --Ronz (talk) 00:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

5. http://web.archive.org/web/20110707163231/http://www.arrakis-systems.com/aarcnet.html

   Self-published. Press release. --Ronz (talk) 00:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

6. http://worldwide.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=US5761430

   Primary source. --Ronz (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

7. https://web.archive.org/web/20080103213841/http://www.prosoundweb.com/industrybiz/biz_news/5_01_biz_news/cirrus.shtml

   Press release from a marketing company. --Ronz (talk) 00:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

   This is not a press release. It references a press release, and then goes on to independently analyze the market situation with respect to Peak Audio being sold to Cirrus Logic. This is an independent, secondary source. ‑Scottywong| chat _ 17:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

   It's from a marketing company, correct? --Ronz (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

   It's written by someone who works for a marketing consultant firm. It is not a press release. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 05:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

   I don't see any difference as far as how we should treat it. It's not a reliable source for identifying any viewpoint other than that of promoting the technology and business. If it has any encyclopedic value, it is completely overshadowed by the promotional aspects. --Ronz (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

   This is not a promotional article. See the "threaded discussion" section in the RFC below for a more in-depth discussion. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 18:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

   We disagree on how to categorize the article. Thanks for pointing out that it is not a simple press release. --Ronz (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

8. http://www.cobranet.info/support/design/ethernet_overview

   Self published about themselves. --Ronz (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

9. http://www.cobranet.info/support/faq#Q12

   Self published about themselves. --Ronz (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

10. http://www.cirrus.com/en/pubs/manual/CobraNet_Programmer_Manual_PM25.pdf

    Self published about themselves. --Ronz (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

    So of the first 10 sources, we've two that are secondary. --Ronz (talk) 00:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

11. http://www.yamahaproaudio.com/downloads/documents/data/white_papers/networkedaudio_introduction_en.pdf

    Self published. --Ronz (talk) 01:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

12. http://www.cobranet.info/sites/default/files/YamahaWP_-_Networked_audio_system_design_with_CobraNet_012607.pdf

    Self published. --Ronz (talk) 01:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

13. http://www.cobranet.info/support/design/digital_audio_distrib

    Self published. Author is editor Kvng. --Ronz (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

14. https://web.archive.org/web/20110715173617/http://www.renkus-heinz.com/pdf_ads/CobraNetWeb.pdf

    Self published. --Ronz (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

15. http://www.cobranet.info/support/faq#Q13

    Self published about themselves. --Ronz (talk) 01:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

16. http://whirlwindusa.com/catalog/digital-audio-networking/e-beam-laser/ebeam

    Self published. --Ronz (talk) 01:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

17. http://www.cobranet.info/support/faq#Q28

    Self published about themselves. --Ronz (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

18. http://www.cobranet.info/support/faq#Q24

    Self published about themselves. --Ronz (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

19. http://www.biamp.com/audiaflex.php?act=log&dlid=18&type=prod&tid=3

    Dead link. Biamp keeps archives of their manuals, but I cannot find this one. Maybe it was renamed?

    Self published. --Ronz (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

20. http://www.cirrus.com/en/products/pro/techs/T9.html

    Self published about themselves. --Ronz (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

    So of the first 20 of the 32 sources, two are secondary. --Ronz (talk) 01:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

21. http://whirlwindusa.com/media/uploads/ci8mmanual.pdf

    Self published. --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

22. http://www.cobranet.info/community/manufacturer

    Self published about themselves. --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

23. http://biamp.com/download_redirect.php?dlid=5&type=prod&tid=4

    Self published. --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

24. http://catalogs.infocommiq.com/AVCat/CTL1642/index.cfm?manufacturer=audioscience&prid=5311

    Self published. --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

25. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/clearone-introduces-network-audio-bridge-130000666.html http://investors.clearone.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=730639

    Press release. --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

26. http://www.inavateonthenet.net/article/44989/Community-ups-processing-power-with-dSPEC226.aspx

    Press release. --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

27. http://www.filmjournal.com/filmjournal/content_display/news-and-features/news/digital-cinema/e3ie0c04bd1a97fdf52b8de0c600c47c2db

    Press release. --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

28. http://www.fohonline.com/newgear/6556-q-sys-ccn32-cobranet-audio-io-card-now-available.html

    Press release. --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

29. http://www.inavateonthenet.net/article/44918/QSC-bolsters-Q-Sys-with-controller-and-I-O-card.aspx

    Press release. --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

30. http://worldwide.bose.com/pro/en/web/pm_8500_8500n/page.html?term=expansion_card&view=component

    Self published. --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

31. http://www.securityinfowatch.com/product/10731583/innovative-electronic-designs-ieds-dna78x4-digital-network

    Dead link. Looks like a press release similar to http://www.securityinfowatch.com/product/10983065/innovative-electronic-designs-dna78x4-series-amplifiers --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

32. http://www.prosoundweb.com/article/stewart_audio_announces_the_new_cva100_2_cobranet_enabled_amplifier/

    Press release. --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing inherently wrong with primary sources. They cannot be used to establish the notability of a subject, but I don't think the notability of CobraNet is in dispute. Per WP:PRIMARY, "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." So, if you believe that these primary sources are being used inappropriately (i.e. being used to do more than make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts), then please let us know and we can fix that. The cobranet.info website is a reputable source, it is published by the owner of CobraNet. Therefore, using a primary source to derive a list of manufacturers that have licensed CobraNet is not inappropriate in any way, as it does not require any interpretation of that source to extract that information. ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 02:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

So you agree with my assessment of first 20 sources of the 32 total?

There is something inherently wrong with an article sourced like this. It violates WP:V and WP:OR. It violates ArbCom principles on NPOV and quality of sources.

I've already said how to fix it, find independent secondary sources. Until then, the article loses it's GA status and should be trimmed back substantially. Two secondary sources is enough for a couple of paragraphs, little more. --Ronz (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no policy or guideline that mandates a particular balance between primary and secondary sources. If there is, please show it to us. The only valid argument for a lack of secondary sources is to argue that the subject of the article is not notable. If that is your argument, then your next step should be taking the article to AfD. If you think that any of the primary sources are not from reputable sources, or if you think we're misusing any of the primary sources by inappropriately interpreting them or analyzing them, then please let us know and we can try to fix it. Deleting large swaths of the article or unilaterally revoking its GA status is not going to fly. ‑Scottywong| confess _ 17:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

OR states, and this has been repeatedly recognized at Arbcom:

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources."

"Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources."

WP:V states, and again Arbcom repeatedly supports:

"Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; ...the article is not based primarily on such sources;"

"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.[7] Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so"

GA requires following WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. This article doesn't come close. --Ronz (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Summary of the sources:

• 2 secondary sources
• 20 self published sources, half from CobraNet/Cirrus Logic
• 9 press releases
• 1 primary source (a patent)

Of these, only one is independent. --Ronz (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I think this discussion has reached a hard place because we're tangling two different questions: 1/ whether to retain the list of manufacturers and 2/ whether sourcing meets GA standards. Different criteria applies to these two questions. I believe the bit from WP:PRIMARY that Scottywong has quoted above is a good explanation of why he and I reject your call to remove the list based on poor sourcing. Sourcing is up to general Wikipedia standards. Whether it is up to GA standards is a different question. I am personally not very familiar with GA policies. ~Kvng (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Who's questioning GA standards? It obviously doesn't meet GA criteria, but I'm not following up with it until we get the COI problems in check, along with the current content dispute. --Ronz (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

You've mentioned GA issues twice in this talk page section so I took a guess that this was where the difficulty was coming from. I guess I was wrong. ~Kvng (talk) 04:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Ronz can't even keep straight his objections to the list. First he said the list was an advertisement in violation of SOAP, then he said it was non-neutral, then he said it was original research, then he said it was inadequately sourced, all the while obsessing about perceived conflicts of interest (and indeed, if you look at the threads on his user talk page, it's clear that obsessing over COI's is one of his primary activities on WP). It seems Ronz has decided that this list must go, one way or another, and he will continue to argue different points until he finds one that works. And if it doesn't work, then he'll try to drag the entire article down by trying to remove its GA status. Ronz, you seem to be rather obsessive in your quest to ruin this article. Are you sure you don't have a conflict of interest here? ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 04:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I made it clear it is all those things, and that they are really just a single problem that violates multiple policies.

If you believe I have a COI, bring up the evidence and I will answer all questions and be sure I am following policy. However, I have none, so it might be best not wasting your time looking. --Ronz (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

But how can we know for sure? You seem unusually passionate about this issue. ‑Scottywong| express _ 16:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Until you have some evidence, please drop it. --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

This list is a bit out of date now. I'll give it another go after the rework of the article slows. --Ronz (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC on manufacturer list

This RfC has been open for a couple months now and, if it is still relevant, it is time to close it. Obviously none of the participants in the discussion are qualified to do so. Any idea how to recruit someone to do this? ~Kvng (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

There has been a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Requests for comment for quite a while. Must be a long backlog. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 17:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the list of licensed manufacturers be included in the article? The list has been removed several times by Ronz. Ongoing discussion among three editors about this action is not converging and additional input is required. ~Kvng (talk) 04:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Keep list - The list of manufacturers is not problematic in any way, and should not be removed. It is not spammy, it is not advertising, and the entries in the list are sourced. Yes, the sources for this list are mostly primary or self-published, but the sources are reliable and there is no reason to doubt their accuracy, and these sources are not being used in a way that is contrary to WP policy. As far as I know, the list is complete and doesn't omit manufacturers (although I haven't actually checked myself... however, even if it is incomplete, then it simply needs to be fixed, not deleted). This list was present in the article since the beginning of its existence, while the article was given GA status, then briefly delisted, and then promoted to GA again. ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 05:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Looks like you intended to vote "support". Binksternet (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Support/Oppose seem to be ambiguous in this case, so I clarified my vote. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 02:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
• Remove the list is currently almost entirely unsourced and the sources that are present are extremely poor primary sources. Arguing that it should remain because it was there when it passed GA 6 years ago is not a reason to keep it. SmartSE (talk) 13:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The entire list can be sourced using a single source: http://cobranet.info/community/manufacturer Yes, it is a primary source. However, using this source to verify this information is not in violation of WP:PRIMARY or any other policy/guideline, and therefore it is not problematic. ‑Scottywong| confer _ 16:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

10 out of the 32 citations in the article are in this section. How is this "almost entirely unsourced"? ~Kvng (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The content is sourced entirely with self published sources and press releases. This violates V, OR, NPOV, and NOT, as discussed in Talk:CobraNet#List_of_manufacturers and Talk:CobraNet#Examination_of_the_sources_and_their_use. --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Your argument here I assume relates to, "and the sources that are present are extremely poor primary sources". There is plenty of active discussion about the quality of the sources on this page. I feel I've already said my piece about that. I don't have an issue with SmartSE making his own quality assessment. My issue is that, by the numbers, the "almost entirely unsourced" claim appears to be quite a stretch. ~Kvng (talk) 19:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• Include - This content is relevant to a licensed technology. The material is adequately sourced, neutral, in balance with the rest of the article and is not promotional. ~Kvng (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment on the COI here: Both Kvng and Scottywong have a conflict of interest with the content to the extent that they should be restricting their edits to WP:COIADVICE (Kvng is the creator of CobraNet, Scottywong has a financial coi with some of the content). See User_talk:Scottywong#Conflict_of_interest and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#CobraNet). Further, I believe their perspective on the inclusion of the content is well into the type of advocacy that violates WP:NOTADVOCATE and is addressed in detail in WP:ADVOCACY, of the type brought up repeatedly in ArbCom findings such as that of Wifione (Principles #1 NPOV and #2 Quality of sources). --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. The raw list without puffery or peacock descriptions is not promotional. The list is useful, encyclopedic and should stay. Binksternet (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Extended content

What policies support that, given there are no independent sources but only self-published sources and press releases? --Ronz (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC) What policies say that if a small section of an article is only supported by otherwise reliable, self-published sources and press releases, then that section must be immediately deleted? Does anyone have any reason to believe that the information in this list is in any way inaccurate? The purpose of sources is to verify information and ensure that it is accurate. The sources used to compile the manufacturer list serve that purpose adequately, and the list is accurate. ‑Scottywong| babble _ 02:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC) "then that section must be immediately deleted" No one is saying that, so let's not pretend otherwise. The policies, quoted in the discussion immediately preceding this, are the same ones repeatedly brought up: V, OR, NPOV. NOT as well, specifically SOAP, as repeatedly pointed out in the "List of manufacturers" discussion. Yes, there is inaccurate information. "The purpose of sources is to verify " Nope. This has been discussed. Sources have restrictions on them depending upon the type and quality. Sources are used to determine whether or not content is encyclopedic in nature. Sources are used to determine whether or not something deserves mention and the extent of any mention. Outside the scope of this discussion, sources are used to determine notability. Sources are used to determine whether or not our content policies are being followed. --Ronz (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC) Deleting the entire section is precisely what you've tried to do several times now, and is precisely what we're discussing. When I ask you for the specific policy that we're violating here, you listed nearly every major WP content policy. Please provide the specific passages within specific WP policies/guidelines that explain why this section cannot remain in this article. Because I don't think there is anything in V, OR, NPOV, NOT, or SOAP that we are violating with this list. And if you believe that there is content within this section that is inaccurate, please specifically let us know which specific content you're referring to, and why you think it's inaccurate. ‑Scottywong| confer _ 16:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC) Sorry, but it appears you are just ignoring what I have written [3][4], what the policies say, what ArbCom says. Given your COI and the discussions to this point, I'm no longer surprised. --Ronz (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC) None of the quotes you provide here give any justification for removing the list from this article. Those quotes make it clear that secondary sources are preferable to primary sources, but none of them say that you absolutely can't use primary sources, or even that you can't exclusively use primary sources to source an entire section within an article, as long as those primary sources are used carefully and appropriately. Yes, the sources used in this section are primary sources. However, they are being used appropriately in accordance with WP:PRIMARY. Obviously, it would be preferable if secondary sources were available to source this section. If secondary sources were available, we might be able to expand this section to be more than just a bare list of manufacturers with little additional explanation. However, with the sources that are available, the list as it currently stands is not in violation of WP:PRIMARY, or any of the other policies that you have put forth. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 03:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC) We disagree. They give overwhelming justification for removal, and ArbCom agrees. Even if they weren't self-published sources and press releases, their removal would still be justified. Seems you are dropping your claims of accuracy and verifiability too? --Ronz (talk) 15:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC) Not at all. You never answered my question as to what specific part of the article you believe to be inaccurate. You said a few lines above, and I quote, "Yes, there is inaccurate information." To me, this means that you know that certain specific parts of this section actually contain false information. Yet, you won't tell us what it is, nor will you fix it. Why is that? ‑Scottywong| chat _ 16:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC) In my review of the article, I noticed unverified information, original research, undue detail, and soapboxing - basically the problems I already identified are worse than what's been discussed. The article is tagged appropriately. As I think the manufacturer list should simply be removed, I'm not wasting my time with the details. As I see it, assertions that such problems don't exist aren't based upon the current state of the article nor application of our content policies. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC) But you said, "Yes, there is inaccurate information." What did you mean by that? Were you bluffing or lying when you said that, or are you really aware of factual inaccuracies with the information in this article? If so, why can't you tell us what those inaccuracies are? ‑Scottywong| comment _ 18:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC) No. I'm saying that assertions otherwise appear to have been made without reviewing the current article content. I'm not going to review content yet again that I feel should be outright removed. I won't bother with minutiae that has no bearing on the current disputes beyond indicating that it appears editors haven't reviewed the content they've been reverting. Certainly that was the case with the external link. --Ronz (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC) I don't understand. Are you saying that your perceived inaccuracies with the article have been corrected since you made that statement, such that your statement about inaccuracies is no longer valid? That doesn't seem possible, because the only edit that has been made to the article since you made that statement was an edit made by you to remove a cleanup tag that you added a few days earlier. Here's my point: you made a statement 2 days ago that there are factual inaccuracies within this article. That cannot be disputed. Yet, you cannot produce those inaccuracies, and when pressed on it, you provide some double-talk response about how you can't be bothered with such minutiae, and circumstances have changed since you made that statement, and other meaningless statements. Clearly, there are no factual inaccuracies in the article, and you know that. Therefore, it's clear that you bluffed, and hoped that no one would call you out on your lie. What else have you bluffed/lied about during our arguments over the last few days, and what would drive you to go to such lengths to get this section deleted? My impression is that you are very emotionally involved with this article for some reason, and you are on a quest to delete the list of manufacturers that borders on the irrational. You're now resorting to lying about problems within the article to try to get your way. You're reporting various editors to COI noticeboards. You're alleging that the article violates every WP policy you can think of in the hopes that one sticks. I believe you have an unhealthy obsession with this article, and I find your behavior increasingly concerning and bordering on harassment. I honestly think that you should drop the stick, and take a break from this article. Obviously, I can't compel you to do that, but I think it would be in everyone's best interest. ‑Scottywong| speak _ 20:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC) I'm saying that there are inaccuracies that I noticed when I reviewed the article in detail.I tagged the article for the most important and largest problems that I found. The inaccuracies are minutiae and I've no interest in finding them again when the content as a whole should be deleted outright. Stepping away from FOC for just a second: I think you should consider how your comments reflect on your editing and judgement here. --Ronz (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC) If there was any inaccurate information in this article, you'd be able to produce it easily. The fact is, there isn't any inaccurate information in the article, and you know it. Until you can produce an inaccuracy, I don't want to see any further claims of inaccurate information in the article. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 02:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC) Sorry that you don't want to see claims that you don't like. That's expected when there's a financial coi such as yours. --Ronz (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC) No, I just don't like to see claims that can't be substantiated. You complain about inaccuracies in the article, and then fail to produce them when challenged. The rest of your claims of are equally spurious. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 17:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Retain list. A reliable published primary source is acceptable for confirming facts. Notability is not the issue here. Maproom (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

  No one is arguing that this is about notability.

  "is acceptable for confirming facts" Not so says V, OR, NPOV, NOT, and the related ArbCom decisions. --Ronz (talk) 00:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

  Actually, none of those policies say that primary or self-published sources cannot be used under any circumstances. There are rules for using such sources, and this article follows those rules. See WP:SELFPUB and WP:PRIMARY. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 02:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

  We're not discussing "any circumstances". We're discussing the list of merchants that is poorly sourced. --Ronz (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Weak remove. Here from Legobot. While not blatant, the section has some slightly promotional words. It's not controversial absolutely necessitating secondary sources from that perspective. I'm more or less neutral on keep vs remove until I start trying to figure out how this list is of encyclopedic value to readers. I generally haven't seen a list of products/companies using a technology on the technology page unless there's some context to go with it. An independent secondary source would help establish why a such a list has a place here, but until then I don't see a strong reason for including the list. As it stands now though, WP:NOTCATALOG puts me more towards remove. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

  If you find some of the wording to be slightly promotional, would it not be possible/preferable to reword the section as opposed to deleting the entire section? ‑Scottywong| confer _ 00:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

  WP:NOTCATALOG has nothing to do with the wording being promotional, but rather the content being inappropriate for an enyclopedia article. --Ronz (talk) 01:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Split into new list article: A list of suppliers really seems a bit heavy for this article, and if it's considered worthwhile to maintain a list of these suppliers, a separate list article like the list of flash memory controller manufacturers should be able to stand on its own merits. For example, the columns of the table could be DSP / Amps / Speakers / Consoles, with yes/no values. --Slashme (talk) 01:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I was recently involved in a somewhat similar dispute where this suggestion was eventually rejected in favor of leaving a list in the main article. ~Kvng (talk) 16:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The difference being:

1) The content here doesn't meet notability criteria due to the extremely poor sources (all self-published or press releases, with no indepedent sources at all).

2) Listing attributes of a product is inherently more encyclopedic than listing manufacturers of products that implement a technology, and the secondary sources demonstrate it for Roku, while we've no such sources here. --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. WP:NNC ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 21:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

But we're talking about creating a list article where they do apply. --Ronz (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Remove list To me this is not an issue of advertising or sourcing. I just don't think it's very encyclopedic to include a list of manufacturers. I do not think manufacturers require a list in this article or elsewhere on Wikipedia. --Iamozy (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, I think the list should be removed per WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --Iamozy (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Remove list The section contains no secondary sources and no independent sources. Instead there are 7 press releases and 4 self-published sources. As such it should be removed per NOT (SOAP, WP:NOTCATALOG: The sources show a strong promotional interests and no encyclopedic value.), V (SPS, SELFPUB: "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so"), OR (SECONDARY: "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources."), and NPOV (UNDUE: The sources demonstrate that only the parties involved care about the material). --Ronz (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - We have to evaluate this by asking, does including a list of licensed manufacturers improve the quality of the page? Yes, it does and provides additional context for readers. It could use some better references, but that is not reason enough to remove it. I support keeping the list but dividing it into two columns to make the page more visually appealing as it is quite long. Meatsgains (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

  Given no source demonstrates the value, I'd say that it is original research to state it does. --Ronz (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

There are multiple sources. What do you mean "Given no source"? The list is supported by self-published sources but are uncontroversial facts, which don't require secondary sources for verification. Meatsgains (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The issue isn't verification, but whether or not it is encyclopedic at all.

There are seven press releases used as sources. The rest are self-published. Nothing here demonstrates that this is of interest to anyone except to the manufacturers themselves, so I'm saying that it is original research to say that there's encyclopedic value here of any kind. The businesses mentioned, of course, benefit from Wikipedia advocating their pov, but to do so violates NOT and NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I hope you guys appreciate that "encyclopedic" is not really a thing. Using this terminology, you're just saying whether or not you think something belongs in the encyclopedia. There's not policy or objective criteria attached to "encyclopedic". ~Kvng (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd hope everyone is using it to mean whether or not information deserves mention per NOT or other related policy. --Ronz (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but that's your interpretation. Another interpretation is WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. ~Kvng (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 00:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I am focusing on the RfC here. You, Kingofaces43, Iamozy and Binksternet have justified !votes with "encyclopedic". I'm requesting, where potentially unclear, commenters explain what they personally mean when they say "encyclopedic". ~Kvng (talk) 15:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I already linked to one section WP:ISNOT described what is and isn't encyclopedic, and WP:WEIGHT explains what is encyclopedic in nature further. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• Weak keep – Since nobody appears to be questioning the accuracy of the list, I think it's best left as is, since it does provide some useful information – although I do think Slashme's idea of condensing the list of manufacturers into a table has merit. In any case, I'd argue that the Wikilinks themselves provide some value – by following one of the manufacturer's Wikilinks, I just found out that JBL is now owned by Harman. In any case, it appears that much, if not all, the list can be sourced (albeit in a somewhat unorthodox manner, since the secondary source references the company's website) with the following: "In 1996, Peavey Electronics, QSC Audio Products Inc., and Rane Corporation became the first licensees of CobraNet. Since then, many other manufacturers worldwide have begun to offer CobraNet compliant equipment (for a full list of CobraNet manufacturers, visit www.peakaudio.com/CobraNet/index.htm)."{{cite journal}} That link to peakaudio.com is now archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20020403042014/http://www.peakaudio.com/cobranet/index.htm. See Google's snippet view of the referenced text for verification of the reference. Perhaps not all we would hope for in secondary sourcing, but enough to have me leaning towards keep. Mojoworker (talk) 07:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

  Accuracy isn't at issue, rather whether or not the information belongs at all. However, I mentioned [5] that when I reviewed the article in detail I noticed that the list is not verifiable as sourced. --Ronz (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

  Just because the sources are primary sources doesn't suddenly make the list "not verifiable". Primary sources and self-published sources can be used to verify information in an article, as long as those sources are being used appropriately, per WP:SELFPUB and WP:PRIMARY. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 01:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

  Please don't misrepresent the situation. The sources don't verify the material as far as I can tell. --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

  Why don't we WP:FOC instead of accusing people of misrepresenting the situation? The sources do verify the material. Either you don't understand WP's sourcing policies, or you're misinterpreting them in an attempt to justify the mass deletions you'd like to carry out on this article. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 17:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

  So deleting one "small section of an article " [6] qualifies as "mass deletions"?! --Ronz (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Take our Onedrive article for example – well over half the references are SPS, because Microsoft is authoritative for basic uncontroversial facts about its own products. But, even if it were to be rejected on the basis of WP:SPS, as stated there (and in the "Threaded discussion" section here below) "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so" and in note #9 at WP:SPS: "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of content." The reference I provided, to the article Audio Systems—it's Not Just Speakers and Wires Anymore, directly mentions Peavey Electronics, QSC Audio Products Inc., and Rane Corporation, but goes on to say "for a full list of CobraNet manufacturers, visit www.peakaudio.com/CobraNet/index.htm." In the context of WP:V, by referencing the Peak Audio website, the IAAPA, an "independent reviewer", "without a conflict of interest" is "validating the reliability of content" there, where an additional 16 manufacturers were listed at the time the article was published. But, I've not cross referenced the two lists, so I don't know how many of the listed manufacturers are covered by those 19. Mojoworker (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Other stuff exists. Looks like Onedrive needs a great deal of work.

"The reference I provided..." I don't know what you are referring to.--Ronz (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Really? A simple Ctrl-F on this page reveals the source Mojo is referring to. It's almost as if you don't want to find it. Source: http://books.google.com/books?id=BlEsAQAAMAAJ ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 05:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the one directly below, published by the International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions. I've gone ahead and added it to the article. I also removed the FV template on the "CobraNet Community" ref – the manufacturers list is clearly there. Mojoworker (talk) 06:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Thanks. I have no access. So this is a monthly trade magazine from IAAPA. Any idea who's Van Meter? Could someone with access copy the entire content to a new section at the bottom of this page to see what else we might do with it? --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Not sure about the propriety of posting copyrighted material on Wikipedia, even if it's only to a talk page. However, you can find what may be of interest to you by doing a search within the document on Google Books at the link Scottywong provided. Mojoworker (talk) 01:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I assume someone has another way to access it given that the most I can get to appear is, "In 1996, Peavey Electronics, QSC".

If editors are concerned with copyright problems, just copy material that we might use. --Ronz (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• Keep or Strong keep if that makes my vote count more? The list is useful to the reader because it illustrates the scope / degree of adoption of the technology. NE Ent 12:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

  I believe that is the intent of it, but that is original research when not sourced. Until recently, the History section included the unsourced statement, "CobraNet has been widely adopted by commercial audio equipment manufacturers and is used in many facilities."[7]. The list is another means of presenting the same viewpoint, one not expressed in any source, but instead expressed by example without context. --Ronz (talk) 17:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• Remove First off, I'm sorry for removing the list, I wasn't aware of the RfC going on, thanks to Mojoworker for undoing the edit with a helpful edit summary, but next time, inform me, please. Wikipedia articles are not a portfolio page, readers do not read about CobraNet to know which companies use it in their products, especially when there are so many and we don't know half of them. Now, I believe, this list makes this article look like an advertisement and if every product, like CobraNet, were to have one of these, we'd be a advertisement catalog, but Wikipedia's not. --QEDK (T ❄ C) 03:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you base your assumptions about what readers are interested in and what companies they are familiar with. I'm sure there are some readers interested in what companies offer CobraNet products. I respect your opinion that the list makes the article look like an advertisement and your desire to eliminate such lists, however, there is certainly not consensus on this. WP:NOTPROMOTION doesn't have any specific recommendations and biographical entries for writers frequently contain a list of publications, for instance. Perhaps this is something to be taken up at a higher level. ~Kvng (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

It's pretty normal for articles of writers to have their publications listed. It's what they do, they write. We're not advertising him but connecting him to his published works, and that is, fine. Now, yes we don't have a policy page that'd go against adding such lists (as in the article under discussion here) but I'm pretty sure such lists do nothing but promote the subject. Indeed it reads like, PROMOTION, I don't know how some other expert editors do not perceive it so. I've got some people to discuss the GAR here and they've seemed to notice the horrible lists, so I guess it's not just me. --QEDK (T ❄ C) 05:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The situation with CobraNet is not much different than Kvng's analogy. CobraNet is a technology that simply doesn't exist without licensees. If no manufacturers licensed CobraNet, then CobraNet would be nothing more than a concept and probably a few prototype boards. The company that developed CobraNet does not manufacture finished products. This is why, for instance, companies like HTC, Samsung, Sony, and Motorola are mentioned dozens of times in the Android (operating system) article (although it's not in a list format). If no smartphone manufacturers used Android, then it would just be a concept, since Google doesn't manufacture phones themselves. In these types of situations, the manufacturers that adopt the technology are absolutely a key piece of information about the technology. I don't doubt that the manufacturer lists in this article could be improved by modifying them (perhaps heavily) to reduce any perceived promotional quality, but I don't think that outright deletion of this material is appropriate. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 23:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Fine, so do it. All of you are fine with arguing about this here, why can't just one of you step up and just change the lists to prose, including sensible information and applications within each company (which has to be properly sourced, ofc). This list looks promotional, as is and the only reason I haven't probably removed again it is because, I believe all content should stay (it goes in contradiction to my CSD log, but you get my point); as you said. --QEDK (T ❄ C) 13:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I personally don't find it promotional, so I'm probably not the best candidate to rewrite it. I also wrote the original list (a long time ago, and it has been modified incrementally by others over the years). If you want to delist the article as a GA, that's fine, but deleting mildly problematic material that is practically fixable goes against the spirit of WP, in my opinion. ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 15:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Something like this? --Ronz (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that looks pretty good. We would need agreement on which manufacturers to remove – haven't looked at it closely. It loses the context of who made what devices, but probably not a big deal. To preserve the context, something like this is what I (and I think Slashme) were proposing above. Mojoworker (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Threaded discussion

I wish the various policies about inclusion of information in an article were all in one place, or at least summarized so. They aren't though, and rarely discussed in my experience. I plan on listing and commenting on them all. Please contribute: --Ronz (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• WP:ONUS states, "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." It links to WP:UNDUE and WP:PAGEDECIDE.

  I don't recall ever using WP:ONUS to settle a dispute like this one, though it does indeed apply. As I read it, it suggests that we look for fixes, and I think we should safely assume that means we look for details on how to do so in PRESERVE, UNDUE, and PAGEDECIDE. It also suggests that the material should be removed if there is no consensus for inclusion. --Ronz (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• WP:WONTWORK states, "Several of our core policies discuss situations when it might be more appropriate to remove information from an article rather than preserve it. WP:Verifiability discusses handling unsourced and contentious material; WP:No original research discusses the need to remove original research; What Wikipedia is not describes material that is fundamentally inappropriate for Wikipedia; and WP:UNDUE discusses how to balance material that gives undue weight to a particular viewpoint, which might include removal of trivia, tiny minority viewpoints, or material that cannot be supported with high-quality sources..."

  I've only quoted the most relevant section. WONTWORK identifies all the relevant policies, all of which have been brought up in the discussions. --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• WP:SELFPUB states, "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
  1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources;
  6. the material is not contradicted by a conventional reliable source."

  This applies to all the sources in the disputed section and they are self-serving, they involve claims about third parties, and the article is based primarily upon such sources. --Ronz (talk) 00:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

  You've misunderstood WP:SELFPUB. The six bullet points refer to the content being sourced, not the sources themselves. The content that these sources verify is not self-serving. A self-published source, by definition, refers to itself. Self-referencing and self-serving are two different concepts. Self-serving implies an ulterior motive to promote oneself. The content that these sources verify does not involve claims about third parties. And even though there are a relatively large number of sources involved, they are being used to verify a relatively small portion of the article. These sources are being used appropriately with respect to WP:SELFPUB and WP:PRIMARY. ‑Scottywong| speak _ 01:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

  Yes, I'm well aware. Ignoring the nature of the sources seems grossly inappropriate when attempting to resolve a dispute about the content that's supposedly verified from them. Still: The content is self-serving. The content is about third-parties.

  "they are being used to verify a relatively small portion of the article." Sorry, but this misrepresents the fact that there are only two sources that are different in the entire article. This list of manufacturers is just some of the worst of the article, failing basically all our content policies, hence the need to remove it outright. --Ronz (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

  The "content" is a list with names of manufacturers. How could simply printing the bare name of a company be self-serving? How could simply printing the bare name of a company refer to a third party? This discussion is becoming nonsensical; we're arguing about things that are common sense. Soon we'll be disagreeing on the definition of the word "the". ‑Scottywong| babble _ 17:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

  Businesses want their names published and those of their business partners. They certainly wanted them listed in Wikipedia, and as many times as possible.

  Meanwhile, there's the problem that the article is primarily sourced with such sources, and this section entirely so. --Ronz (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

  But, we're discussing a technology, a protocol, much like (the also obsolete) Micro Channel architecture#Cards. If I develop an arcane interest in MCA or CobraNet and want to investigate the technology, Wikipedia is a logical place to start, and the list of manufacturers is of great importance to anyone coming to Wikipedia in such a situation. Mojoworker (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

  But that's not what Wikipedia is for, hence the WP:NOT concerns. --Ronz (talk) 00:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

  No, actually, that's exactly what Wikipedia is for. In 25 years, when CobraNet is truly a dead technology, it will be relevant and important to know what companies used CobraNet in their products, just like it's important to know that USRobotics made fax modems, Memorex made floppy disks, and HTC built Android-enabled smart phones. It sounds like what you believe is that simply the act of printing the name of a company is a promotional act, since "businesses want their names published and those of their business partners." Therefore, we should rid Wikipedia of any mentions of any businesses; even printing their names is taboo. Delete any articles that are about notable companies, because clearly they're just advertisements for that company's products. ‑Scottywong| chatter _ 16:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

  You have a WP:FCOI concerning the matter.

  "Delete any articles that are about notable companies, because clearly they're just advertisements for that company's products. " No one is saying that. Please don't misrepresent the situation.

  Mention of entities for non-noteworthy reasons is promotion. How promotional is determined by the sourcing. Too promotional and poorly sourced, then it's unencyclopedic and removed. Extremely well-sourced and of obvious historical value, and it may be enough to get the entities or event to get an article in itself. --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• WP:SPS states: " Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of content. Further examples of self-published sources include press releases, material contained within company websites, advertising campaigns, material published in media by the owner(s)/publisher(s) of the media group, self-released music albums and electoral manifestos:
• The University of California, Berkeley library states: "Most pages found in general search engines for the web are self-published or published by businesses small and large with motives to get you to buy something or believe a point of view. Even within university and library web sites, there can be many pages that the institution does not try to oversee."
• Princeton University offers this understanding in its publication, Academic Integrity at Princeton (2011): "Unlike most books and journal articles, which undergo strict editorial review before publication, much of the information on the Web is self-published. To be sure, there are many websites in which you can have confidence: mainstream newspapers, refereed electronic journals, and university, library, and government collections of data. But for vast amounts of Web-based information, no impartial reviewers have evaluated the accuracy or fairness of such material before it's made instantly available across the globe."
• The Chicago Manual of Style, 16th Edition states, "any Internet site that does not have a specific publisher or sponsoring body should be treated as unpublished or self-published work."

  Note the need for secondary sources. --Ronz (talk) 16:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

  WP:SPS doesn't apply when the source is only being used to verify information about itself. In this case, for instance, the source for Renkus-Heinz loudspeakers only serves to verify that Renkus-Heinz offers one or more products with CobraNet technology integrated into them. The Renkus-Heinz source is not being used to verify that, for instance, JBL does or does not have CobraNet-enabled products. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 17:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

  "doesn't apply" Howso? --Ronz (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

  WP:SELFPUB: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field..." ‑Scottywong| confer _ 16:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

  So it does apply. I'm been involved in a large number of noticeboard discussions about sources where we decided the "expert" qualifications had been met. They certainly don't appear met for any of the sources here, much less them all.

  "Exercise caution..." Again, the need for better sources. --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

  No, it doesn't apply. The quote above from WP:SELFPUB clearly says that the "expert" qualification is not required if you're using the source to verify information on itself. We're only using these sources to verify information about the company's own products. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 18:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion about Doering (2001)

• This source: https://web.archive.org/web/20080103213841/http://www.prosoundweb.com/industrybiz/biz_news/5_01_biz_news/cirrus.shtml which you list above as a "press release" (it's not) can certainly be used as a source to demonstrate the encyclopedic nature of the manufacturer list. This is an independent, secondary source. It is not written by an employee of Peak Audio, Cirrus Logic, or any of the CobraNet licensees. It is not a press release, in the sense that press releases are simple announcements that don't contain much substance and never contain something like deep market analysis, like this article contains. This article actually references the official press release, and then goes on to independently analyze the situation where Peak Audio was bought out by Cirrus Logic. Additionally, this article contains multiple statements about CobraNet licensees, such as:
  • "...CobraNet becomes more valuable to Peavey, QSC, and the growing list of CobraNet licensees with every addition to the list. Every new licensee is a potential source of 'fax machines' (CobraNet-enabled devices) that can talk to each other and pass signal over Category 5 cable, RF or any other transmission medium that reliably delivers data packets structured according to the Ethernet protocol."
  • "[Cirrus Logic] specialize in manufacturing DSP chips. Matt Czyzewski, Vice President of Technical Operations at Biamp Systems, says 'the potential is there for the cost of a CobraNet node to come down by a factor of 5 to 10, if Cirrus Logic puts the whole thing on a chip. That would obviously be good for everybody, because CobraNet would be easier to afford, and real estate would go down, which helps the packaging.' Meaning CobraNet products like Biamp's new Audia network, Peavey MediaMatrix or QSC Rave could be a lot cheaper in the future.
• This source, along with the dozens of other primary sources, provides more than ample justification for the manufacturer list. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 17:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

It's a press release written, released by a marketing company. It's not being used as a source for the list. Even if it were something other than a press release, I don't see it verifying anything that suggests a list of manufacturers is noteworthy. Quite the opposite. The more licensees for CobraNet, the better for Cirrus Logic - that's how licensing works. There's nothing noteworthy about it, and it certainly doesn't justify listing licensees nor manufacturers. --Ronz (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

It is not a press release. I suppose now we have to argue over the definition of a press release? It is a market analysis article written by someone that works for an independent marketing consulting firm. There is no indication that the author of this article is under contract with Peak, Cirrus, or any of the CobraNet licensees. There is no indication that the author is writing the article to promote anything. The article does not even come close to following the typical format of a press release, which according to WP's own definition, "consists of 4 to 5 paragraphs with word limit ranging from 400 to 500." Press releases are announcements, this article doesn't announce anything. In fact, it references the actual press release that was written by Cirrus Logic. Why would Cirrus Logic release their own press release and then contract someone else to write a completely different press release? ‑Scottywong| babble _ 05:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

"There is no indication that the author of this article is under contract" But that's what the company does, write under contract for such companies to promote their business.

"Why would Cirrus Logic release..." For promotion. --Ronz (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Please provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Christian Doering of Dynamic Market Systems was under contract from either Peak Audio or Cirrus Logic to write this article. Christian Doering appears to be a regular contributor to prosoundweb.com. For instance, who would have contracted Christian to write this article? The non-profit IEEE standards committee that developed the AVB standard? And this one? Christian appears to be someone who simply writes about industry trends and news. Maybe he is paid by prosoundweb to write these occasional columns. Maybe he writes these columns to promote himself. Unless you have proof of different circumstances, this is an independent, secondary, non-promotional source. ‑Scottywong| confess _ 18:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

You have a FCOI with the material.

Thanks for the links:

• http://www.prosoundweb.com/article/game_changer_avb_now_in_the_future/P2/ (May. 14, 2010). "Christian Doering, M.B.A., CSI, CDT, provides marketing services to pro AV and lighting companies through his company Me, Ink."
• http://www.prosoundweb.com/article/industry_insight_gazing_into_the_crystal_ball_of_connectivity/P3/ (May. 09, 2011) "Christian Doering, M.B.A., CSI, CDT, is the principal of Me, Ink, a marketing consulting firm that provides strategic insights, marketing communications, and technical writing to companies in the professional AV and lighting industries."

Indeed, he wrote these two to promote himself.

Why should we think Doering is a regular contributor? The three articles are all I can find.--Ronz (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

How many articles would he need to write for you to consider him a "regular" contributor? It seems that prosoundweb.com's site may only go back to around 2010; it's possible that he might have written other articles that can only be accessed at archive.org (like the original article that spawned this discussion). Just because he works in the pro AV and lighting industry doesn't necessarily mean (or even imply) that he wrote this article under contract from Cirrus Logic or Peak Audio. It simply means that he works in this industry, and therefore knows a lot about the market and has an interest in writing about it. I've still seen no hard evidence that even hints that he might have been paid to write this as a promotional article for CobraNet or one of its licensees. It seems like you're going to great lengths to discredit this article as an independent, secondary source; but you're providing no real justification for that besides jumping to conclusions with no evidence. Again, this article is not a press release, and it is not promotional in any way. ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 04:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

All I'm asking is why we should consider him to be a regular contributor. Yes, I realize that we might only be seeing the tip of the iceberg. On the other hand, we may be seeing it all.

He wrote the article under the byline of the marketing company he worked with. We simply don't know why he wrote the article. What about the company itself? Any thoughts on the reputation of the company for doing market analysis? --Ronz (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Our policies don't require him to be a "regular" editor of anything. I just mentioned it as one of the many things about this article that make it obvious to me that it's not promotional. You're right, we simply don't know why he wrote the article, but that doesn't mean that we automatically assume it's promotional until such time that someone can find Dennis' phone number, call him up, and question him about his state of mind at the moment he wrote the article. If you have evidence that the article is promotional (apart from "the author works at a marketing company"), then lay it on us. If not, then the article is an independent, secondary source and should be treated as such. ‑Scottywong| chat _ 18:24, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Turns out Doering was the sole employee at the company. You were correct, he's published more. His clients appear to include Bag End, Renkus-Heinz, and Equi=Tech. His concentration was branding, product reviews and profiles, and public relations.

It's a poor source, obviously paid marketing. Still, we can use it and it's far better than the vast majority of what we have.

What are you proposing we verify with it? --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

The point is moot since I've added an additional ref to EETimes verifying the information. Mojoworker (talk) 07:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Not a all. Doering 2001 is a better source, unless I'm incorrect about http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1134636 being the reference you're referring to, a very short press release. --Ronz (talk) 15:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Why do you assume it's a press release? The article carries the EE Times byline. But I've added an additional citation to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. Or do you have reason to believe that Cirrus Logic is fabricating their acquisition of Peak logic and deceiving their shareholders and the SEC in their filing with the Federal Government? Do you really think Cirrus Logic didn't acquire Peak Audio? I've got to say, man, you are one stubborn dude. This is an uncontroversial fact – why are you making a controversy out of it? Why not just admit you're wrong on this? Mojoworker (talk) 19:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

The EETimes article is a press release. If we can't agree on what sources are, we're going to have a difficult time deciding on how they can be used. I'm not making a controversy out of the content in any way, nor have ever suggested otherwise. Additional sources are unnecessary, even the EETimes reference is redundant.--Ronz (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

My apologies. I misinterpreted your challenge of Doering as a question about its suitability as a citation for the content that is currently referencing it (the acquisition of Peak by Cirrus). Mojoworker (talk) 20:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so Doering's clients were Bag End, Renkus Heinz, and Equi=Tech. Was Cirrus Logic or Peak Audio ever one of his clients? If not, there is still no evidence that he was paid to write this article as a promotion or press release for Cirrus or Peak, and still no evidence that this article is promotional in any way. Have you even read the article all the way through? It does not read like a typical press release. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 21:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Doering's article is not a press release, but a marketing profile that we should assume he was paid to write by Peak Audio or Cirrus Logic.

Is anyone proposing we use Doering's article further than it already is? I think we should given it's so much better than the majority of sources we are using. --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so it's not a press release anymore. Now it's a marketing profile, whatever that means. I'm not sure I understand why "we should assume he was paid to write [the article] by Peak Audio or Cirrus Logic". How can you make such an assumption with absolutely zero evidence? There is absolutely no reason to make that assumption, just like we can't make the assumption that your irrational obsession with this article is fueled by some unknown conflict of interest. ‑Scottywong| confess _ 23:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, please don't misrepresent the situation, and please stop with the personal attacks.

As there are no current proposals for using the source, I don't see the need to look deeper into the quality of the source. --Ronz (talk) 01:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The source is already used in the article. It was brought up as a source that could be used to demonstrate the encyclopedic nature of the manufacturer list. Re-read the first post in this section, where I quote relevant passages from the article that demonstrate the importance of manufacturers who license CobraNet. That is where this conversation started before it got derailed by extensive arguments about what a press release is. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 01:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

As I said when I first responded: I don't think the reference demonstrates anything encyclopedic. More licensees are better is all he's saying. Nothing encyclopedic about that. --Ronz (talk) 01:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOT

• WP:NOTEVERYTHING states, "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. (See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404) Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight. Although there are debates about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, consensus is that the following are good examples of what Wikipedia is not. The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive."

Because someone finds some information "useful" doesn't mean it should be included.

NOT applies to the content within articles as well as article topics. --Ronz (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that we include every true or useful fact about CobraNet in this article. We're simply suggesting that we include a short list of manufacturers who have adopted and used CobraNet technology in their products, because that is a relevant and verifiable nugget of information. Without manufacturers, CobraNet would simply be a neat concept that someone dreamed up. ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 00:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

"Without manufacturers, CobraNet would simply be a neat concept that someone dreamed up." This is common sense, not something that justifies a listing of every manufacturer that can be found.

My bringing up NOTEVERYTHING was to point out that simply saying it is useful doesn't suffice for inclusion and that NOT applies to content within an article as well as the article topic itself. --Ronz (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

While this information is genuinely useful, no one is saying that its usefulness is the only reason why it should be included. It is one reason of many. I think we've said all we can about this topic, and no further good can come from more participation by you and I. I'd recommend letting the RfC proceed and allowing a neutral 3rd party to close it after it has been open for 30 days. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 18:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Useful does not mean it belongs, and yes it appears to be the common reason to keep for Binksternet, Slashme, Meatsgains, Mojoworker, NE Ent. --Ronz (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• WP:NOTSOAPBOX states, "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing."

  The only source that lists most of them is a promotional webpage. All the other sources in use are all press releases or self-published articles. One source not currently used for the list identifies a few manufacturers in the context of the need for manufacturers in order for the technology and licensing to succeed. While such information is useful for marketing campaigns, Wikipedia is not to be used for marketing campaigns. --Ronz (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• WP:NOTCATALOG states, "Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content. However, Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed."

5. Sales catalogues. An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is a source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Prices and product availability can vary widely from place to place and over time. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices and availability of a single product from different vendors or retailers.

"7. Simple listings without context information. Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions. Information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information should be added as sourced prose. Lists of creative works in a wider context are permitted."

Manufacturers is just another example of something that shouldn't be listed per "Simple listings". They are clients of Cirrus Logic, in a business alliance to license the technology.

Note what "Sales catalogues" says about the need for mainstream media sources that provide commentary rather than just passing mention. --Ronz (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• WP:INDISCRIMINATE states, "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia."

  Note the requirement for independent sources. --Ronz (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:OR

• WP:PSTS states, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. "

"Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source."

I take these statements to mean that article simply should not be like this one: written from primary sources and press releases with a very small number of secondary sources thrown in. Further, no large section should be sourced in such a manner either.

I believe that the PSTS section of OR applies to more than just original research and improper synthesis, applying to context and degree of prominence.

Think it safe to assume the section was added at least in part to demonstrate the scope of adoption of CobraNet when no sources could be found on the topic.

Finally, the subsections of the list of merchants are completely original research. The subsectioning should be removed outright. --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I take these statements in PSTS to mean that primary sources are perfectly fine as long as you're not making an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim. The list of manufacturers requires no such claims to be made. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 23:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Lists combined

I was going to add a section on NPOV, but it seems overkill at this point given the GA reassessment comments and results. I've gone ahead and combined the lists, creating separate sections (rather than separate lists) for the device types. Without better references identifying noteworthy manufacturers in a historical context, I'd rather remove the list completely than list only the two notable ones (Peavey and QSC). --Ronz (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I think your reformatting of the list works, and makes the section more concise. Thanks for that. I would obviously oppose removing the list entirely. There is no need for "references identifying noteworthy manufacturers in a historical context" to verify a simple addition of the company's name to a list. If we were going to write a few paragraphs on how a particular company influenced the development of CobraNet, or something more substantial than just the company's name, then we'd need some in-depth references. Otherwise, this primary reference more than suffices to verify the inclusion of a company's name on the list. Per WP:PRIMARY:

Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

Including a manufacturer's name on a list does not require interpretation of the aforementioned primary source. It is a straightforward statement of fact. It can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source and without further, specialized knowledge. Any manufacturer listed on Cirrus Logic's authoritative list of CobraNet manufacturers can be included in this list. However, anything more than including the company's name in the list may require additional references. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 15:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

You've made your viewpoints very clear. Unfortunately, you've no consensus and the GA reassessment demonstrates just have far this article has been from the consensus. As I indicated with my first comment here, it's been a classic case of WP:CONLIMITED. --Ronz (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Until the RfC above is closed, I don't think you're in any position to determine whether or not there is consensus to delete the lists entirely. So why don't you just relax. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 00:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Please just drop it. Consensus is larger than this article, and the GA reassessment demonstrates just how bad the CONLIMITED problems have been here. --Ronz (talk) 00:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

No it didn't. There wasn't any discussion of limited consensus in the GA reassessment. There was talk of problems with the lede, problems with list formatting, some need of copyediting, and some potential problems with some references. Consensus is determined by discussions like the one immediately above in the RFC. Again, until the RFC is closed by an uninvolved editor, it is inappropriate for you or I to judge whether or not there is consensus to remove the lists of manufacturers altogether. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 23:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

"There wasn't any discussion of limited consensus in the GA reassessment." No one said there was. No one said much of anything that you're assuming. Please just drop it. --Ronz (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)