Talk:Onkyo DX-6850

Why was the very good version of "the questioner" adapted to "the template"? In my opinion, there was nothing to adapt - templates are not used to cut down good and valuable contributions. Question: Why did e.g. the very good overview of Onkyo disappeared? MfG, Uwe Again - only a badly structured post should be adjusted to the template -. a well structured one should not.

my opinion

Why was the post restored and incorrectly changed??? I do not wish it more! I have deleted my contributions, because the user Passat without contacting me beforehand in self-direction my contributions of the template adapted and (for me) with trouble created tables, which were intended for the equipment comparison, had deleted. As long as such self-willed users destroy other works, I am no longer willing to present my knowledge here. To my knowledge, templates should only be available for untrained or comfortable users. I ask in this athemzug also the administrator my contributions deleted by me and the pictures uploaded by me from the recovery console irretrievably to delete, since on the pictures the copyright lies by self production with me. affected of it are the complete contributions DX-6850, T-9890DSR + 3Pictures and 2 pictures of the EQ-201 --The Questioner 10:57, 22 Sep 2009 (UTC)

What's the point of overall overviews in the device data? You can find the complete overviews at the manufacturer, there is no need to list them for hundreds of devices. A general overview should be sufficient. By the way, the templates are not for untrained or comfortable users, but to get a uniform structure, so that the contributions are comparable. See Help New Device, quote, "Using the template ensures that articles on different devices look consistent." Also, I didn't add any errors to the posts, just added information from Onkyo documents! --Passat 14:23, 22 Sep 2009 (UTC)

Please let's try to discuss on a factual and constructive level.

My personal opinion:

1. you are both extremely dedicated and competent users and share the same wonderful hobby. - many thanks at this point.

2. if one makes the effort, and an obviously well elaborated article on Hifi-Wiki.de, such a change should at least be discussed at least BEFORE a discussion is initiated - that is not done and I'm sorry.

3. passat surely didn't want to annoy you with the changes, he also put a lot of time and effort into this project. However, in this case I can understand your anger. The change was certainly not malicious, but perhaps unnecessary.

4. basically I think that templates are not equal to "law". There are better ways to present a device - and worse, of course. I am of the opinion that individual freedom of design - if it is clear - is is not in conflict with comparability.

5 I would be true to the motto:

Better a good article that doesn't match the template than no article at all and an disgruntled user

to restore "The Questioner's" original version... and add in Passat's supplementary information from the Onkyo documents. Would that be an acceptable solution for both?

Best regards, Your WikiSysop

I have to agree with Passat that the device pages are the wrong place to list all related devices. After all, that's what Onkyo CD Player is for in this case!--Gero 15:28, 22 Sep 2009 (UTC)

---

Hi all, thanks for your perspective on things. Personally, I don't mind the summary table. Does it do any harm at this point?

But I don't understand why e.g. the following information has been lost has been lost:

1. Rotation speed: 500 - 200 rpm
2. reading speed: 1,2 - 1,4 meter/sec
3. synchronous fluctuation: no longer measurable

Committed and motivated users like the questioner are very important for Hifi-Wiki in my opinion. In the sense of the project and with consideration for the authors of the articles, maybe we should think about what advantages a less strict application of the templates would have. Think, for example, of the sheer time savings of not having to adjust so many entries.

What do you think?

Best regards, your WikiSysop

---

I deleted this information because every CD player has this data without exception. It is part of the CD specification and therefore the mention is simply superfluous.

About the device table: As already mentioned, this table already exists. Why repeat it for each device? This only inflates the database unnecessarily. A unfortunately forgotten principle of data processing is called "data economy". This means that you should avoid storing data more than once where it is not absolutely necessary.

About the use of the templates: I think the idea of the templates is very good, because it makes the comparison of different devices much easier. And the templates are designed so flexibly that you can also add any information that goes beyond the templates, e.g. under "special equipment" and "remarks". --Passat 22:42, 22 Sep 2009 (UTC)

---

Hi Passat, thank you very much for the feedback. I think your arguments are also good and understandable.

@thequestioner: As you can see from the length of the discussion, we take your objections very seriously. In the end, your article has been preserved almost completely - "only" the overview-table was deleted - which I can put back into the article again into the article. It would therefore make me very happy, if you, taking into account the arguments presented here, the Hifi Wiki project as a user.

Best regards, WikiSysop

---

My idea with the table in the section Links was, that it is possible for an Onkyo-interested person to compare others with that. In this case, the person is not interested in what other manufacturers have built for equalizers or cassette decks, hence the disappearance of the navigation. The table of contents should be for all those who need information quickly and could thus simply click on the link without having to scroll down forever. That's why I had designed it that way, just (in my eyes) user friendly.

On the subject of saving data: How can it be that I am wasteful with data, but in return it is stated what the CD player can not do? E.g. MP3 support, or automatic playback. Why are the formats CD-R and CD-RW listed twice, since you're supposed to save on data. It's like someone telling me I can't drive the wrong way down a one-way street, but they're standing in a no-parking zone.