Talk:High Fidelity Pure Audio

Why does the edits I made keep being deleted? Peacekeepr73 (talk) 05:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The reasons are given in the edit summaries. To expand a little, the content you added is more akin to that of a sales catalogue than an encyclopaedia.--Aquegg (talk) 08:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The addition of early release titles are no different than the list of titles released for the D-VHS format on the D-VHS wiki page. Also if that aspect of the edit is unacceptable why has the right side infobox been erased? It is no different than the one found on any other article for a media format in which it displays the logo and or packaging for identification purposes. Peacekeepr73 (talk) 06:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Suitability of article content is determined by WP policy and guideline, not other articles (which may be unreviewed, or out-of-date w.r.t. to latest policy); WP:OSE has some bearing here. According to the article sources, it's not a media format; it's a marketing initiative using the existing Blu-ray format. See also WP:BRD, and WP:NFC.—Aquegg (talk) 07:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

This article also takes form from another similar marketing initiative, the DVD-Audio. By your definition it is not a new format and yet contains a similar infobox on the page much like I am trying to include for the HFPA Blu-ray page. Every part of what I have included in the revision can be found on the pages of other media formats or even in this case marketing initiatives so I as you please to stop taking my additions down. Or atleast allow part of it to remain, specifically the infobox. Peacekeepr73 (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

As above: "suitability of article content is determined by WP policy and guideline, not other articles". I nor any WP editor defines what or what is not a format; rather, WP editors summarize (preferably) scholarly, secondary sources on the article subject. If you feel there is a strong case to add an infobox, then do so, making sure that all the info in it is appropriately sourced. The image you included does not pass WP:NFC; you could include the just the logo though.—Aquegg (talk) 07:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Just saying: a.) WP:OSE has *NO* official bearing here because it's not an official guideline so it's meant to be taken with a grain of salt, anyway, and b.), as quoteth from WP:OSE, "These 'other stuff exists' arguments can be valid or invalid." In other words, not even WP:OSE calls it automatically invalid if somebody points to other stuff, which is how Aquegg would like to interprete it incorrectly. --79.242.203.134 (talk) 00:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

wording of Deutsche Grammophon release

The text could implies that the 3 Deutsche Grammophon bluray audio discs contain "almost every" Beethoven song. While https://store.deutschegrammophon.com/p51-i0028948367672/various/beethoven-die-neue-gesamtedition-limitierte-auflage-/index.html suggests 'BD Audio 119-121 Symphonies Piano Sonatas, String Quartets: Karajan (1962), Kempff (1960s), Amadeus Quartet (1960s)' that there a only a few songs on these discs. The complete collections consists of 118 CDs + 3 Blu-ray Audio discs + 2 DVDs. Although 3 audio discs might be a lot for this kind of media, it actually does not mean, that it is possible to buy a few blu ray audio discs to have a real complete collection. 2A02:2454:81E4:D000:B063:8D31:55AC:DEDB (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)