Talk:List of Bose headphones

message: Page last archived by — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 13:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article reads like a PR press release cleverly disguised as a 3rd party text.  Many of the footnotes are links to Bose's website.  Other links are to positive reviews of Bose's products.  There are no negative reviews or comments, no mention of competing products, no reference to group reviews.  Altogether, this article is of questionable value, to put it charitably.
At the very least, more links to truly independent reviews should be included.  Some links are mentioned in a section here below.
Star-lists (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article reads like a PR press release 

message: The following sources have been moved here from the second Afd.  Please strike them out as they have been added to the article text. John Vandenberg 08:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources (from Afd) 

message: The page was getting too huge so I archived 75KB worth of discussions. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 14:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Past discussions archived

message: thumb|right|Bose In-Ear (IE) headphones
Here are 2 images not bing used currently. I am placing them here on the talk page to keep a link to them encase they are needed in the future. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 03:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GNU free images not currently being used 

message: It would be great if a section on in-ear headphones could be created (currently it is only referred to in Criticism) 1292simon (talk) 08:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  In-ear headphones 

message: The purpose of the overhaul was to 1) structure the article according to widely recognised product type (eg on-ear, in-ear, rather than Bose's uncommon categorizations) 2) make it sound less like an advertisement and 3) remove unnecessary Bose jargon. Therefore I am restoring this content (which was reverted). Discussion welcome!! 1292simon (talk) 08:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see your talk page. -- Phoenix (talk) 11:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Noted. The reasons in your edit summary are not justification for reverting the edit. "Lets try to use talk page", totally agree! We would be making a lot better progress if you would go into detail on specific articles instead of vague edit summaries for reverts. Thanks for the advice on the OE and BT, I will update the article.1292simon (talk) 05:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm trying. You change SO MANY pages all at once it is hard to focus on one thing at a time. Can we PLEASE take it one page at a time and go from there? It would make things much smoother. -- Phoenix (talk) 06:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe this is justification for reverting large edits over a few small details. Sorry if it doesn't fit your workload, but I am trying to do as much as possible while I have the time 1292simon (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert of 09:13, 1 February 2012 edit 

message: I'm not convinced by this edit. Shouldn't the article sort under "B" in most of its categories, and under "H" in :Category:Bose Corporation? -- John of Reading (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defaultsort 

message: Hi, my edit has too many changes to be accurately described in an edit summary, so I am justifying it here instead:
* Red Dot awards: It is necessary to spell out that the Red Dot awards are not based on sound quality, otherwise people would naturally assume that an award for loudspeakers included audio quality testing.
* IE2: restored reference to independent review
* MIE2: restored referenced text
* MIE2i: restored reference to independent review
* Bluetooth headset series 2: restored referenced text
If other editors do not agree with any of the referenced claims, it would be appreciated if you could use this Talk page or provide references to justify your position, rather than deleting referenced text without explanation. Thanks 1292simon (talk) 11:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  July 2012 edit 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/navigation/bose-corporation/
*:Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 11:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page