Talk:Class-T amplifier

message: An advert tag was placed on this article in late may 2007. 
The amps in this class are commercially significant, somewhat different than other PWM amplifier designss, and are quite differetn from digital amplifiers. The distinction is sufficintly important to merit notice in WP. Though I would suggest not more notice than this small article whih links to more general articles related to the design approach. 
If phrasing is not improved by WP editors in the near future, I suggest that the advert tag be removed as the commercial ad content of this article is not excessive as it currently stands. ww 03:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: advert tag

message: They look like advertisement of shops. Even in this case they should be compatible with the EU "long distance selling" Directives http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32002L0065:EN:NOT for the one's operating in the EU, or the FDC for those in the US or some relevant, in order to be listed, so the links provided here should checked accordingly.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.38.141.211 (talk) 10:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: External links 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was: not moved. Primefac (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Class-T amplifier →  – The article is about a trademarked product.  There is no such thing as a "Class-T amplifier", Class T is simply a trademark for this company's design of a class D amplifier.  This is clear and there is no dispute.  Because of this, we should be referring to "Class T" as a trademark, and class D as the design, both in the article and in the title.  Also, I believe it should be "was a trademark" as I don't see a live trademark, and the parent company seems out of business.  Best I can tell, the dash wasn't used either.  Second choice is move to company name.  Current name is misleading.  71.76.228.224 (talk) 02:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

text: Apologies about the template removal. You inserted the malformed tag (as you could've seen when you put in the template) which caused this to appear under "Malformed requests" on the RM page. I've gone ahead and fixed the template for you. :) --QEDK (愛) 21:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, mistakes happen, I assumed it was an innocent misunderstanding.  I had subst: the command but it borked for some reason.  I stumbled across the article, and I wonder if it should be a redirect, but even if we are generous, I just want it to have a title that is consistent with WP:MOS and the facts. 71.76.228.224 (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

text: Sorry that I was slow to respond, working two days user:Jenks24, but I feel it was already covered in the nom, and I have covered it here again, so please reconsider the close or consider leaving open.  You can't compare Class A to Class T because one is a real class, the other is a trade mark.  It is confusing to do so, demonstrated by the exchanges above.  There is NO such accepted class as T.  It is a trademark for a modified class D.  As such, the article can only possibly be about a trademarked product, and should be titled as such.  This isn't hard to verify. 71.76.228.224 (talk) 12:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reopened the discussion and will leave it for another admin to close. I still think this is a clear no consensus case, but we'll see if anyone else feels differently. Jenks24 (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Mostly though, why would you seek to rename "Class-T amplifier" (if there's no such thing as "Class-T") into "Class-T" alone? It's still just as much an amplifier!  If you wanted a rename to "Tripath amplifier design" that would at least make some degree of logical sense. But COMMONNAME still seems to override all other arguments here. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Class T is the common name, although I'm willing to bend on the title here.  It was a unique implementation of a class D amp that was just different enough to pass muster at the USPTO office.  The manufacturers even said it was a modified class D amp.  We can't seem to get passed that. Class A/B doesn't compare here as it is combining two accepted standards using a phase inverter, T is using class D with patented add-ons, Class T is a trademark for a neat design, but it is not a unique, accept amp class It is unquestionably class D.  The manufacturers patented it as an extension to class D and never claimed it wasn't class D. I promise Andy, if you look it up, you will see. If you really think "Tripath amplifier design" is better, I would accept that as a 2nd choice. Again, the goal is clarity for the reader (who we are accidentally giving bad info to). 71.76.228.224 (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  So what are you going to rename Class AB to?  Because your only reason here seems to be that it's not one of the original canon classes A..E, but a derivative. Yet both of these derivatives are clearly distinct and notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Class A/B is an accepted class within a class.  One of most popular classes, in fact, as most higher end tube guitar and audio amps use it.  T isn't a class at all, it is not that distinct, certainly not to have it's own class, and it doesn't.  It is a trademarked name and a few widgets on top of a class D amp.  Had it been a class, it would have followed the current nomenclature in naming and been given the next letter, or an extension to the D name.  It wasn't.  It is an improved class D amp with a fancy name.  BTW, you know that patents mean very little as 50% of patents challenged in court are thrown out.  That aside, if we treat it as a distinct class of amp, we are misleading the reader.  In the end, that trumps everything.  The title and prose should reflect the reality that this is modified class D amp with a trademark and patent to prevent anyone else from using it.  71.76.228.224 (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
*I understand it quite well.  We don't have articles on "Ford cars".  If the article is on the trademark, it shouldn't have the word amplifier in the title.  If it is on the technology, it should be renamed or simply merged.  As it stands, it is simply inconsistent with WP:MOS, but what do I know, I'm just a bloody IP. 71.76.228.224 (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  You've accused me of not having read the article, and now you're accusing me of opposing you simply because you're an IP (rather than having to repeatedly present a reasonable case against renaming). Either raise it at ANI, or cut it out. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The comment wasn't directed at you specifically, Andy, and surely you know the place to raise a question wouldn't be ANI, it would be a content dispute issue.  71.76.228.224 (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 18 February 2017