Talk:MP4 player

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 21 March 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the MP4 player article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Keep

I think this article is useful and should be kept. I have one of these players and couldn't find much useful information in in English till I found this page.

  • I revised much of the article so that it wouldn't be so derivative, and to conform more to the style of Wikipedia. I agree that the article ought to be here, regardless whether the items in question are useless, as stated below, or not. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide reference on things that people need information about, and documenting audio-video devices is within the scope of this one. --Aaron Walden Image:Tsalagisigline.gif 13:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm definitely gonna' get flamed

I should have discussed this with some people first, but I'm probably gonna get flamed for modifying huge portions of the article, I may or may not have creased out the grammar problems, in addition, I may have caused more problems than may have fixed. Reeves 22:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, added some tags because this article needs work anyways... Reeves 20:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, added some MORE tags again, added "weasel words" tag 'cause I think this article uses too many opinions in the wording like: "some people..." "most of them are..." "generally they..." and etc. Sans Nom Reeves 23:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to mention... the phrase: "it can..." and another phrase: "it has the ability to..." Damn this articles so general...
Sans Nom Reeves 23:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Against Merge

While this article summarizes the general characteristics of all portable media players worldwide, original of fake, Chinese MP4/MTV Player focuses on Chinese-made-and-designed players; many are pirated or imitations of popular brands. A "no brainer"? Go figure. Chinese MP4/MTV Player should be expanded to include information about the labour status in China, and what causes the companies there to make fakes.--Jw21/PenaltyKillah(discuss•edits) 16:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Replying on mergee per policy. Chris Cunningham 16:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

Didn't this page use to have some useful external links? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AresAndEnyo (talk • contribs) 04:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I added the links back in if you have some you think are just spam delete them but I think MP4 Nation at least should be kept.--AresAndEnyo 04:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Leave the MP4wiki.com link, it actually provides useful information, more so than the eBay link —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.246.182.193 (talk) 08:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing against the quanity of information, but Wikipedia does not reference other wikis as a source. A bit paradoxical, yes, but on the terms of reliance... --Jw21/PenaltyKillah 17:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia done it again

This article seems to of regressed from wiki editing. Like why was the rockchip section deleted?--AresAndEnyo 06:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

One word: Notable? --Jw21/PenaltyKillah VANucks|12-9-2 01:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
One Subheading in that article "Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content" so I guess your the one causing all the trouble.--AresAndEnyo (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, I had only reverted edits on external links, which are links to message forums (not a place of encyclopedic researchable knowledge), and are completely unrelated to "Rockchip". When I added "One word: Notable?", I was just giving my opinion on why such a section may have been deleted... And speaking of that section... I had traced this article's history, and there are no evidence, whatsoever, of me participating in the removal of a "Rockchip" section. I do not tolerate such accusations. Seeing that you added back the spam links, and after reading your comment from my talk page, I have decided not to revert it this time, for now, and see if it still stands. --Jw21/PenaltyKillah VANucks|23-14-4 06:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Deletion?

In the meantime, I will actually propose a nomination for this article to be deleted. For starters, the title "Chinese MP4 player", or its prior name, "Chinese MP4/MTV Player", isn't official, and had not been referenced on a notable publication. This article seems to include original research, questionable bias, and content that seems to be doing anything but providing an unbiased and accurate insight... instead, it's mainuplating and mislabelling a group of unnotable products for the sake of it. --Jw21/PenaltyKillah VANucks|23-14-4 06:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad you came around :)
I agree that this is basically a POV fork of the PMP article, and that those aspects of the Chinese market which can be sourced can easily be discussed in a fully-merged version. Chris Cunningham (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I disagree the article offers information on a certain type of player which is quite widely recognized, it is more than noteable and combining it with the pmp article will unnecessarily clutter that article with a rediculous amount of information about one type. This article is a well valued peice of wikipedia and if people who have little knowledge of the subject or interest in actual construction would keep out of it this article would of grown to be much better, and can still. The fact this article was probably better 4 months ago then it is now. After alot of the people arguing for it's deletion have destroyed it now they feel it should be deleted cause of its low standards. Arguably these players are more widespread in the market than anything creative offer and maybe even ipod, as such they are quite notable. If people would give the article a bit more growing room than continually attacking it than it will get better. If S1 MP3 player has a page I feel this should definitely. LEAVE IT ALONE!! More importantly Have you started a nomination we should be talking on or not!--AresAndEnyo (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Alright, let me address every single portion of the literary Lucifer above, no offence, I hope...
You vouched that "the article offers information on a certain type of player which is quite widely recognized", but I almost never saw them recognized by a well-documented publication or news media. Remember, the backbone of an encyclopedic article is some good ol' global notability!
Compared with many similar pages, I won't really say this article "is more than noteable", but as long as we carefully adjust, fine-tune, and remove irrelevant, biased, unverified, unecessary, and literally made-up content from this article, "combining it with the pmp article" wouldn't "clutter that article with a rediculous amount of information about..." Hold up! The Portable media player category isn't a type. It is a category of electronic devices. Chinese MP4 players are a type. A type of portable media players!
In fact, if we decide to nominate this article for deletion, (something I need more response from), the information from the PMP article is more or less enough to describe and summarize Chinese MP4 players, considering the little demand for its detail. I know there are "people who have little knowledge of the subject or interest in actual construction would keep out of it this article would of grown to be much better...", but we must salvage and interpret the fractured content within this article, and believe me, the result will be much shorter.
Now, because you said "this article was probably better 4 months ago then it is now", I went back through page history, and got this diff out, exactly 4 months ago. Now you can really compare.
And I only initiated a discussion for the deletion of this article due to the undenying fact that this article's foundation is a load of POV and original research, and that notability still stands, even in a regular encyclopedia. At least I don't "feel it should be deleted cause of its low standards", alright? And maybe you can provide a citation on how"these players are more widespread in the market than anything creative offer and maybe even ipod"...
I know there are those who "would give the article a bit more growing room", but the "growing room" has been occupied with content that hardly seems verifiable, like I've said above. And I think we've "continually attacking it", and "it will get better"? Hmm...
"If S1 MP3 player has a page I feel this should definitely. LEAVE IT ALONE!!" That article serves its purpose as a product page, while this article seems to be a compilation of ideas, speculations, and interesting but hardly citated information that is bundled in a title that is uncommonly used altogether. (Both "Chinese MP4 player" and "Chinese MP4/MTV player") And that's a good Chris Crocker impersonation, by the way. Good job.
"Have you started a nomination we should be talking on or not!" Do you want to? I need some more response from other users first.
Ultimately, the judgement of deleting or keeping an article should be in the balance of the Wikipedia community, not the interests of oneself. Therefore, I would need some more response. Thanks again! --Jw21/PenaltyKillah VANucks|24-14-4 07:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC) (Phew!)
Just to point out that AfD is a discussion, so it's perfectly acceptable to discuss it here first before making a formal request. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I know that it is acceptable to talk here but I mean I want to know if there is an AFD going down at the same time that I should be apart of.--AresAndEnyo (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok now a quick reply, firstly I don't see the S1 MP3 player page as that different they both have trouble sighting sources and are both about generic chinese players. I can definitley make this page amost an exact replica of that page for these players ie examples and such. While you can rip out any page in the name of neutrality and original research, I take a much more relaxed view to wikipedia, sometimes I think you need to give the benefit of the doubt as a lot of useful relevant encyclopedic articles have trouble getting fully sourced, which is the only real complaint. Your POV isn't right it's just that it appears that way cause it is hard to source, I can work on that, for the meantime when you go to a forum site on this topic and the majority of posts are about problems with the players and ebay sellers con-ing buyers it is not that unreasonable to say that there might be problems with the product in general. Sends this to the AFD and I will say keep and chances are you may well win because technically your probably in the right, but I don't feel that wikipedia should be run in a tick cross manner, and article be useful and informing to large amount of people should count for something, even though I know I long list of policies say no. A personal note to Jw21 if you keep attacking me personally I will report you to various admins and I do think that by the book is grounds for blocking, though I personally don't agree with that as well.--AresAndEnyo (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, there seems to be a little misunderstanding here. I did not personally attack you. I just wanted to respond to your reply, point-by-point. That's why I quoted each point in italics and responded to each of them. One more reminder: S1 MP3 players are have a similar build. Sure, some of them are from China, but Nextar and Coby (American) also manufacture S1 MP3 players. Anyway, I hoped I had made my case. To all other users, do not hesitate to give your opinion, other than the 3 already in discussion. --Jw21/PenaltyKillah VANucks|24-14-4 19:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why "MP4 CHINESE players"???

This article is a shame. Many MP4 are not Chinese, and MP4s from China fail miserably on notability (because it don't have much difference from non-Chinese ones). Note most of the article can be applied to most if not all media players, not only the Chinese ones. Also, there are also many cloned mp4 in other countries, not only China. SSPecter Talk|E-Mail ◆ 01:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC).

If you had read the article, the name doesn't mean players with the MP4 video format. Most players from China which are clones or copycats tend to advertise as "MP4 players", as in "MP3+MP1=MP4", since those players usually wouldn't be compatible with the MP4 format. And because a whole lot of players are following that trend, the content in the article is notable. There's also sources and an external article included. You are free to contact the Wikipedia:Help desk for any further inquiries. --Jw21/PenaltyKillah 02:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
And if you had read my post, you would notice I am not talking anything about the MP4 format. My issue is that the article is indirectly associating "China" with "cheap or cloned 'MP4' players". However, there are many original digital players from China and many cloned digital players from other countries. SSPecter Talk|E-Mail ◆ 06:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC).
-Jw21: Sorry but i think you are very biased on this topic, many of the cheap players from China are clones, but there are even more that are not, just because the person who choose to put images for this article used a nano clone doesn't mean that all MP4 players are clones. You should also realize that the term 'MP4 Players' is not simply an advertisement, in China these players are always referred to MP4 Players, it is hardly a advertising gimmick but is an actual reference to hand held video players - Just because you or where you live does not see it this way does not make it a gimmick or advertisement.

You should also be aware that many MP4 players that use the newer chipsets are quite capable of playing .MP4 formats and much more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.152.232.27 (talk) 10:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if I sound biased or anything, but all that I said came from the article, no matter how flawed it may be. The article isn't referencing to clones, branded or not branded. The images that are used are from China and were referred/advertised as MP4 players, and they just happen to be clones. Unless you can find an image of a Chinese MP4 player which isn't a clone, that'll be fine. I've been to China and the "MP4" reference was, in the words of alley shopkeepeers, roughly translated, "It is next generation of media player machine, from MP3 to MP4!" A few of them were aware of the MP4 video format, let alone recognizing video formats. Anyway, there are sources and an external link to back this up, and of course, recent players now have the MP4 video format, as stated in the article too. If the only issue is with the misleading clone images, then upload non-clone Chinese MP4 players. --Jw21/PenaltyKillah 17:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
That is the whole problem. The article isn't referencing to clones: it is referencing to China clones. SSPecter Talk|E-Mail ◆ 06:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC).

Well just to justify that MANY of these players can be called MP4 players as they almost all tend to play XVID format, which is a MPEG-4 standard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xvid If you want references to where you can find sites or publications that refer to MP4 Players, then look in Chinese sites (zol.com.cn <- Cnets China affiliate) where they have entire sections for 'MP4 Player' or any Chinese tech publication. BTW for a person so picky on citing reliable sources you must know Chinese 'ally' shop keepers aren't exactly the best source of information, most shop keepers who sell electronics in China don't know anything about the products they sell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.246.182.193 (talk) 09:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I didn't even see this discussion, but it should be clear from the new article title that I've fixed it. :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please delete this article

This article should be deleted, it is uninformative and the grammar is so poor that some of the sentences are almost incomprehensible. Overall it comes across like some sort of anti-Chinese propaganda article. It falls short of the standards people have come to expect froma resource like Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.82.51 (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)