Talk:Celestron
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Sales Pitch
A number of the edits to this article have been like sales pitches for Celestron. Providing detail down to the number of inches of aperture for each model is overkill and makes the article less encyclopedic.
Comparions with Meade and others are reasonable in the context of showing the progress of innovation and the propensity for telescope manufacturers to copy each others designs. Garglebutt / (talk) 02:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- Did a little cleanup along these lines. Removed most "tit for tat" Meade comparisions since they seemed out of place in an article describing Celestron. "Comparions with Meade and others are reasonable in the context of showing the progress of innovation and the propensity for telescope manufacturers to copy each others designs" -- this is true but what are you trying to say?. In other words what you are saying above should be stated flat out in the article (in the new section ==Competition with Meade== maybe?) instead of hinted at it by juxtaposing one against the other. 69.72.7.195 05:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Quality
Why doesn't somebody add an article talking about the quality of these telescopes? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bobafett12 (talk • contribs) 09:09, 24 February 2006.
- Feel free to be WP:BOLD but remember that the article shouldn't turn into a fan service. Quality tends to be fairly subjective whereas additions to this article need to be WP:NPOV. Meade and others make fine instruments so you would need to identify what makes these better which may be harder than you think. Garglebutt / (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- 69.72.7.195 edits had some good points, but went overboard substituting opinion that "they have shown a propensity to copy each others designs" for examples of this being done, and removing information about several product lines on shaky grounds. Gene Nygaard 09:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Looking over the edits I am reverting back to 05:07, 9 October 2006. "propensity to copy each others designs"" may be opinion but other edits seem valid. Wikipedia is not a product guide, it is an encyclopedia. So additions to this article should describe "Celestron Corporation" and what they have contributed or what has happened to them that is Notable Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations). Sections on types of Computerized drives and other sections need to be re-written since they offer unverified opinion and just seems to describe "catalog listings". It does not offer even a description of how they work or why they are significant or Notable (see Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations)#Criteria for products and services). If there is info that should be added back in I would start with this version and intergrate it. Halfblue 14:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Product lines are typical, encyclopedic information about manufacturers, not a "catalog listing". You don't need every detail, of course, but if anything starts getting too long it can be split out as its own article, just as makes of cars are. Gene Nygaard 23:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Looking over the edits I am reverting back to 05:07, 9 October 2006. "propensity to copy each others designs"" may be opinion but other edits seem valid. Wikipedia is not a product guide, it is an encyclopedia. So additions to this article should describe "Celestron Corporation" and what they have contributed or what has happened to them that is Notable Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations). Sections on types of Computerized drives and other sections need to be re-written since they offer unverified opinion and just seems to describe "catalog listings". It does not offer even a description of how they work or why they are significant or Notable (see Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations)#Criteria for products and services). If there is info that should be added back in I would start with this version and intergrate it. Halfblue 14:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- 69.72.7.195 edits had some good points, but went overboard substituting opinion that "they have shown a propensity to copy each others designs" for examples of this being done, and removing information about several product lines on shaky grounds. Gene Nygaard 09:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
