Talk:CobraNet/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

External links

@Ronz: you've tagged the external links section as having problems. Presumably the official Cirrus Logic link should stay. Can you tell us what your specific concerns are with the other link? ~Kvng (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

See discussion above. --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Lots of discussion above but I see you've removed the tag so I guess it is a moot point. ~Kvng (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I've linked the section. --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on CobraNet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110707232625/http://www.biamp.com/audiaflex.php?act=log&dlid=18&type=prod&tid=3 to http://www.biamp.com/audiaflex.php?act=log&dlid=18&type=prod&tid=3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Cleanup templates

User:Ronz Two editors have assaulted added a long list of cleanup templates to the top of this article. I tried to remove the templates, and Ronz reverted me. I intend to show that these cleanup templates are not applicable or helpful to this particular article at this time. Here are the templates that are currently at the top of the article:

• This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral.

  This article currently has 39 references. I count at least 14 references that are not published by Cirrus Logic or a CobraNet licensee. While the article could arguably use more independent sources if we wanted it to become a GA or an FA, I really don't think that the current state of the sourcing in this article requires a cleanup template. The {{third-party}} cleanup template says that is should only be used on " articles to identify articles that name sources, but that are biased because every source named has a very close connection to the subject, such as the manufacturer of a product." (emphasis mine) That is clearly not the case here. If there is any specific content that is not verifiable, please point it out so that we can fix it.

• This article relies too much on references to primary sources.

  This article currently has 39 references. Of those 39 references, 8 were published by Cirrus Logic, the owner of CobraNet. I don't think that 20% of references being primary is worthy of a cleanup template. More importantly, what specific information in the article uses sources in a way that falls afoul of WP:PRIMARY?

• A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject.

  This is arguably true, but not particularly relevant. Both Kvng and I are major contributors to the article, but we are not the only contributors to the article by a long shot. This article has been edited by dozens of editors. Neither Kvng or I are actively making major edits to the article. It is also debatable whether either Kvng or I have a demonstrable COI with the topic, as neither of us have a direct financial interest in the success or failure of CobraNet. Additionally, the instructions for the {{coi}} template tell us: "Do not use this tag unless there are significant or substantial problems with the article's neutrality as a result of the contributor's involvement. Like the other {{POV}} tags, this tag is not meant to be a badge of shame or to 'warn the reader' about the identities of the editors." If you believe that there are significant/substantial problems with the neutrality of this article because of a perceived conflict of interest, please point out the specific problems so they can be fixed.

• This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience.

  I have no idea where this one comes from. Please point out the content in this article that constitutes an excessive amount of intricate detail, to the point that it violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

• This article may be too technical for most readers to understand.

  According to {{technical}}, this cleanup template should be used "to identify articles or sections featuring excessive jargon, not enough explanation of concepts and too difficult for readers to understand." I disagree that this article suffers from this problem. The vast majority of technical jargon is either defined in the article, or wiki-linked to a relevant article that contains further explanation of the concept. If there is a particular part of the article that you believe is too technical, uses undefined jargon, or doesn't fully explain complex concepts, please point out the specific passages so that they can be fixed.

It is my assertion that, while this article is far from perfect, the problems that it suffers do not rise to the level of requiring a cleanup banner at the top of the article. Let's have a discussion amongst anyone that is interested to see if we are in agreement with that assertion, or if we can identify any critical problems with the article that need to be fixed before the cleanup banner should be removed. Thanks. ‑Scottywong| express _ 23:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Scottywong. I beleive these banners were added as part of a pattern of disruptive editing by Ronz and should be removed on that basis alone. Your detailed analysis gives further justification for removing these banners. ~Kvng (talk) 00:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I believe your conflicts of interest and battleground mentality undermines good faith efforts to improve this article.

That said, regarding the templates I wrote, "some of these haven't been addressed at all - some might be more appropriate for sections."

Further, I think it would be most helpful to review the comments in the reassessment and be sure that the problems identified there are reflected in the tags.

It might be helpful to identify when and who added the tags so we can determine what progress has been made. --Ronz (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

As per your WP:FOC mantra, I beleive it would be more productive to look forward than backwards. Are there any imperfections in the current version of the article that you believe are sufficiently severe and general to require a tag at the top of the article? ~Kvng (talk) 16:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand.

I'll go ahead and identify where the tags came from. --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

[1] --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

[2] --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Ronz, I'm not terribly interested in who added the tags, I'd rather have a discussion about whether or not they are valid, relevant, and needed at the top of this article. When I removed the cleanup tags, you reverted me. Therefore, I have to assume that your opinion is that each of these tags are valid, relevant, and needed. So, can you elaborate on why each cleanup tag needs to be on top of this article, and specifically address the questions that I took the time to write above? If not, then please remove the cleanup tags. ‑Scottywong| confer _ 17:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

"I'm not terribly interested..." Great. Please strike out your comments to the contrary as a demonstration of good faith. --Ronz (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Done. Can we talk about the cleanup tags now? ‑Scottywong| gab _ 17:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I see that instead of engaging in this discussion, Ronz, you decided to add more cleanup tags to the body of the article. I find that to be pretty disruptive. Could you stop that and engage in this discussion before adding more cleanup templates to the article? There is clearly a difference of opinion on whether or not these tags should appear on this article. Let's come to a consensus before adding more. I've taken the time to lay out my argument above, can you refute any of those points? ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 17:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I've reread my response above and don't think it is hard to understand. I'm pretty much saying the same thing as Scottywong and you don't seem to have trouble understanding that. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to clarify.

I do think it may be useful to bring QEDK into the conversation in case {{overly detailed}} and {{technical}} require discussion. I think they should be removed now as there is no justification for these in the edit history you linked to or on this talk page as far as I remember. ~Kvng (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Quickly reviewing the article, looking at what progress was made after the templates were added and after the reassessment, I think we'd have a much better article if the issues identified in the templates were addressed across the entire article. We still have large sections that are unsourced, sections written like marketing copy, highly technical sections, poor sources, too much reliance on primary sources, etc. As the focus of reassessment was mostly on just removing the GA status, it didn't give us a great deal to work from there that are new concerns.

That's all the time I have for today. --Ronz (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would disagree with your assertion that the article is not perfect. There are definitely things that can be improved in the article. However, the intention of cleanup tags is not to document every minor flaw within an article. It is also not to document the things that need to be fixed before the article can attain GA status. Far from it. Instead, cleanup tags are intended to point out major problems with an article that are a significant threat to its accuracy or verifiability. Problems that are substantial enough that not only editors but even readers should be made aware of them, via a brightly colored and bolded notice at the top of the page. The use of some of these cleanup tags have guidelines associated with them, which I've pointed out above.

So, while this article is decidedly imperfect, it is quite clear to me that the problems within the article do not rise to the level of requiring cleanup tags. Unless you can demonstrate why the problems in this article require cleanup tags (or demonstrate how the problems in this article meet the criteria guidelines for each cleanup tag), then the tags should be removed. ‑Scottywong| babble _ 17:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we need to get you to stop edit-warring and work cooperatively with others. --Ronz (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

You're a funny guy, Ronz. You're telling the guy that started a civil talk page discussion about the issue that he needs to work cooperatively with others. And you're the guy that refuses to engage significantly in the discussion, won't focus on content, and whose only substantial contribution to this article is to slap cleanup tags all over it and attempt to delete large sections of it. I think you've got to start working cooperatively. There are only 3 editors participating in this discussion right now, and 2 of the 3 agree that the cleanup tags are inappropriate. I wouldn't call that a strong consensus, but it's all we have at the moment. So, while I'm not yet attempting to remove the cleanup tags that existed on the article before today, I will continue to revert the additional cleanup tags that you decided to add to the article in reaction to me starting this talk page discussion. If you'd like to take it to ANI to see how the larger community thinks we should handle the situation, I'm more than happy to do that. But I'd much rather have a civil discussion about the cleanup tags here, and come to a decision on how to proceed, before taking unilateral action to add/remove cleanup tags from the article. Your choice. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 20:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

It seems the original cleanup tags have indeed been removed from the article. Either way, let's have a brief discussion here to decide what the appropriate path forward is. The world will not come to an end if this article doesn't have cleanup tags on it for a few days while we sort things out. ‑Scottywong| express _ 20:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with Kvng. Adding the nag-tags is disruption by Ronz who should look for other ways to achieve personal satisfaction. If someone is not capable of constructing a pleasant explanation of an actual problem on the talk page in under 200 words, they are not able to help. Johnuniq (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• I believe the only tag this article could warrant is {{technical}}. But then so would most of the niched articles. I did a pretty (nice?) rehaul on this article a few months back and it seems like a pretty decent B-class article as-is. But, the "Manufacturers" section does no more than establish portfolio and I remember saying that it shouldn't be there but it still is. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 06:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

FYI, we were not able to reach consensus on whether the Manufacturers section should be included (see #RfC above). Without consensus, the article stays as it was (Manufacturer section remains). ~Kvng (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

None of the problems brought up in the discussions here have been resolved across the entire article, and as QEDK points out, even the "Manufacturers" section that was the focus of so much discussion is still problematic. As I wrote, "We still have large sections that are unsourced, sections written like marketing copy, highly technical sections, poor sources, too much reliance on primary sources, etc." Let me add there's that self-published sources are being used heavily and inappropriately, there's unverified information and original research. These are all topics discussed in the past, all problems that we agreed were here and started making efforts to address. The problem is these problems are article-wide. I'll help anyone interested in improving this article. Until then, I think it best to focus elsewhere. --Ronz (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)