Talk:Tuner (radio)

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Radio Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Create: Missing years and articles in radio, National Association of Radio Distress-Signalling and Infocommunications (Hungary) Assess : Unassessed Radio articles; Unknown-importance Radio articles Cleanup : Radio articles needing attention Expand : Midweek Politics Bob Crane Maintain : Portal:Radio Stubs : Expand: Radio stubs Verify : Unreferenced BLPs Other : Collaboration of the Week: Requests for Radio peer review: Rod Serling The Howard Stern Show The History of Rock & Roll American Top 40; The Museum of Curiosity; Scott Mills (radio show)

Archives (Index)

1

@Fountains_of_Bryn_Mawr, I don't want to edit war, but I think your removal of the new images I added were a bit too extensive. Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Adding_images_to_articles doesn't place a limit on the number of images. I think the different images are informative. Andre🚐 21:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the 2 images I had removed earlier, the Game Gear and the crystal radio set. I also converted the tuner images except for 2, one with tubes one front of a panel, to a gallery. Hopefully that is a reasonable compromise. The images are all a bit different and are not the same thing - some older, some newer, some wood, some Japanese, some American, etc. Andre🚐 22:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added some years for chronology to illustrate why I have so many images. Per A gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images Andre🚐 22:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few images of the insides of Luxman and Sony to show the capacitors, gangs, filters, and other components, a German tuner so we now have German, Japanese, and American tuners, and now links to Hifiengine catalog pages and Radiomuseum, which has links to catalog, service manuals and schematics. While sort of a primary source, I think reasonable for a page like this. Hopefully the new gallery, which demonstrates aspects of tuners not readily explainable in text, and a chronology from tube tuners in the 1950s to digital tuners in the 80s and 90s, is acceptable. Andre🚐 23:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason to remove the images is that Wikipedia is not a repository of images. Images should be placed in context and against descriptive text (MOS:PERTINENCE), and be readable at thumbnail. 10 redundant[1] images of radio tuner face-plates, some scattered across unrelated sections, have no encyclopedic value. The current version of the article still has the same problems, (un-readable) thumbnails of redundant images (pictures of radio tuner face-plates). When you have to read a caption to even find out what the image is it points to little encyclopedic value. And they are still scattered around as decrative images unrelated to text. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The images aren't redundant. They illustrate a chronology and different aspects of the evolution of design. And they are related to the text. Andre🚐 20:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with @Fountains of Bryn Mawr. I have tried to arrange the images in the first section per MOS:PERTINENCE and found only two images to be useful. I will make another pass and delete the others if we can't get a good consensus here to keep the extras currently at the top of the section.

The gallery is more problematic. If we think readers are interested in a collection of images like this, we can put a WikiMedia link to them in an External links section.

Another alternative is to write more text describing the chronology; just the addition of years to the captions isn't connecting for me. I am, however, skeptical that a detailed timeline of product development would be a helpful addition to the article. ~Kvng (talk) 15:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The images show the evolution of tuner design from tube tuners, to analog solid state tuners, to digital tuners. I don't see what isn't useful or illustrative about that. Some show the inside of the tubes or the circuit boards. Some show how the Japanese tuners began to be more prevalent with the digital tuning design, and how they originally copied the American design but eventually went their own way. Are the images really bothering anyone? I originally created this article back in 2004 and it languished in a very poor state for many years. I've just recently updated it with references. Would you mind at least giving me some time to see if I can source more statements that back up my product development chronology? And why exactly wouldn't that be helpful? Andre🚐 19:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where did this "no image gallery" idea come from anyway? The policy clearly allows for them, and they exist on many articles. The images are clearly pertinent to the text that's being described; I don't even understand the argument that they aren't pertinent images? It's an article about tuners and the images help people understand how tuners are built and what they consist of as far as the controls, the circuit board or tubes, and the changes in design over time that tells a story. It's not important to be able to "read" the pictures because there's no meaningful text other than the brand name and the numbers on the dial. Those aren't important, or at least not so important that not being able to read them at thumbnail is an argument not to include them. But you can clearly see the analog controls versus digital controls, and in the case of the vacuum tubes you can see the tubes and something of the construction, on the circuit boards you can see filters, capacitors, gangs, and in some cases the progression of digital electronics versus solid state. Policy suggests avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made. as differs over different time periods, Japanese versus American, etc. Andre🚐 00:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also reverted the {{clear}}s which are non-standard and break the flow on my screen; are they serving a purpose there? On my screen I see 1 tuner by the lead, crystal radio being discussed followed by pic thereof, vaccuum tubes discussed followed by pic therefore, and Japanese electronics and digital electronics being discussed with 2 pics nearby. Andre🚐 00:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not get the historical points you mention from the gallery captions or the pictures themselves. Please read WP:GALLERY and see if you think this still belongs.

The puropse of {{clear}} is to keep images positioned near they text they're associated with regardless of the screen size. ~Kvng (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On my screen that creates a bunch of unsightly whitespace, regardless of what browser or mobile or desktop. I don't think the images need to be exactly positioned right directly next to the line they're on. I can take a screenshot if you want to see what I see. Given that this article has recently undergone a bunch of radical expansion and improvement, would you mind extending the benefit of the doubt that I'll be able to explain this? I don't see anything in GALLERY that would preclude what I'm trying to do here. The overarching story is about the development of electronics in America versus Japan, analog versus digital, tubes versus solid state versus completely modern digital electronics. This is already covered somewhat in the text where it discusses Japanese electronics industry, the development of transistors versus tubes, and circuit miniaturization. There's also a wood versus metal versus plastic story to tell here. Please bear with me and I'll do my best to justify the existence of the extra images. Andre🚐 15:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is pretty clear on this, perhaps you should red the guidelines again re:MOS:IMAGEQUALITY - Poor-quality images—dark or blurry; showing the subject too small, hidden in clutter, or ambiguous; and so on—should not be used unless absolutely necessary, WP:GALLERY - Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article while avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made. The images in the gallery match the "Don't" part of those guidelines - to dark, showing the subject too small, hidden in clutter, and ambiguous. This is an encyclopedia that describes a radio tuner, not a magazine article that describes different commercial radio tuners over the years with a decorative picture for each entry. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The images aren't poor quality! They're not dark, and not blurry, nor ambiguous. I don't even understand how we're looking at the same thing. They're unambiguous images of tuners, tubes, and tuner circuit boards. And the gallery does indeed add to the understanding as I explained. I really don't agree at all with your characterization of the images or their usage. Andre🚐 19:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, we don't all have to agree but we make decisions based on consensus and a consensus doesn't have to be unanimous. Two of us are saying most of these images should be removed. WP:GALLERY which is a summary of consensus elsewhere on this question is, by my reading, saying they should go. You've made it clear that you think the gallery is useful but I don't feel like you've addressed concerns raised in WP:GALLERY or by myself or Fountains of Bryn Mawr. Unless you can identify something in WP:GALLERY that speaks to your objections, we arguably have a consensus (with you as an exception) to remove the gallery from this article. ~Kvng (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2 versus 1 is definitely not a consensus. You also haven't made a policy-based objection to the gallery at all. In fact, just now, Fountains of Bryn Mawr cited a completely invalid section about IMAGEQUALITY that doesn't in any way describe this. The images all clearly show their subjects and do not show any clutter in the images, or any dark or blurry images, or ambiguous images. Why don't we solicit this at an appropriate noticeboard or create an appropriate WP:RFC to solicit more opinions. Andre🚐 19:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Tuner_(radio) Andre🚐 20:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, in the gallery, we have: a box with knobs, an (open box?) with knobs showing tubes, an (open box?) with knobs showing tubes, a circuit board with tubes, a circuit board?, a box with knobs, a box with knobs, a circuit board? an unreadable (face-plate?). So too small, ambiguous, and if there is anything the reader is supposed to draw from them, its hidden in clutter. Nothing there to add to the reader's understanding of the subject mostly because they are similar, repetitive images, unreadable images. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to clutter in the policy refers to the clutter inside the images and not the clutter of having images. What you just described is very contextually significant as it shows exactly what tuners are - tubes, circuit boards, boxes, and faceplates, and knobs, that's what tuners are and that's what the images are supposed to show. If you delve slightly deeper, you would notice that as the policy says, a point of contrast or comparison is being made. The captions explain that some are Japanese, some are German, and some American. The tubes, versus solid state capacitors, versus digital boards. Nothing here is an argument based on policy to remove them, nothing showed any ambiguity whatsoever. Andre🚐 20:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2 versus 1 is definitely not a consensus You're right but if you can't make a case that WP:GALLERY doesn't apply here, we have to give a large weight to that because it documents a wider consensus on the question. ~Kvng (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That policy clearly says that a gallery is allowed if a point of contrast or comparison is being made, which it is. You've hand-waved away the good faith explanations, though I cannot see a good reason why. Therefore, there's nothing in GALLERY that says to remove it here. The cite to IMAGEQUALITY is doubly invalid as I explained and being grossly misinterpreted. Andre🚐 20:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My reply to this is at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Summary_of_dispute_by_Kvng. ~Kvng (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I was cleaning up this article and adding references, I realized that the section on TV tuners, which was merged here back 13 years ago, is basically an entirely separate article. Also, it has no real references. While technically older CRT TVs all include a TV tuner analogous to the radio tuners that this article is really about, I'm not entirely sure that this article belongs here, and not at TV tuner card in the modern day, or as part of television set. I'm going to keep trying to find some references or useful material for it, but I wonder if I should just excise the section. Alternatively, I could try to reference it and then WP:SPLIT it off if the article gets too long. However, I'm not thrilled with it being there with a bunch of ancient technical info that was essentially added as WP:OR. Anyone with thoughts, or other general thoughts on my big rewrites, please drop 'em in the thread. Andre🚐 05:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The title and a lot of the lead are sufficiently general that one can make an argument for covering both audio and video forms in the same article. I'm not sure this is what readers would be expecting. There are editors who would not hesitate to remove unsourced suspected OR material like this. I prefer to try and salvage but I'm not yet seeing an obvious way to do that here. ~Kvng (talk) 16:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I prefer to salvage it. I managed to add a couple of references to that section after I wrote that, but it still needs more work. Andre🚐 00:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article contain a gallery of images (as shown below) illustrating the history of radio tuners? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These images show the evolution of Tuners from analog American tube tuners to solid state and digital Japanese tuners, include inside views of the circuit boards and vacuum tubes. The images are clearly lit and visible. Similar to other galleries mentioned in the image policy, Lily, Wedding dress, and Oil painting, this modest gallery illustrates the range of stereo tuners in a way that enhances the reader's understanding of the evolution of consumer electronics design that words cannot. Nothing in the image policy discourages galleries wholesale, and they appear on many articles, often much larger and more extensive than this.

WP:GALLERY is clear that these are generally undesirable but does make allowances. Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article while avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made. The claimed demonstration of the evolution of tuners is not immediately evident looking at the gallery and accompanying captions. Editors discussed potential improvements to the gallery to address this but ran up against concerns that the story is already told in the text and a smaller number of images is included conventionally and the gallery photos are superfluous.

Please state Yes or No with a brief statement. Please do not reply to the statements of other editors in this section. That is what the Discussion section is for.

• No Images should only be included when they are encyclopedically valuable and paired with sourced text specifically connected to that image (eg., if there is an article paragraph about Heathkit AJ-20 tuners, it would probably be appropriate to include an image of said tuner). Although galleries can be appropriate in a few situations when each image is connected to a small amount of article text, large galleries consisting of images divorced of any relevant, sourced text are more suited for other Wikimedia projects. (t · c) buidhe 05:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No. This gallery is exactly what it appears to be - an indiscriminate and random collection of differing tuner types that have no direct connection with any material contained in the text of the article (otherwise the image could be placed with that material). WP:GALLERY applies here in spades. What is worse: the caption obscures up to half of each image and one of them is largely truncated. We certainly do not need a reference as to what each is because mostly it says on the front panel, but per WP:OI, we don't need them anyway.

2A00:23C8:9883:A001:1122:3237:7FEF:568A (talk) 18:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. I do find the opposition to this gallery perplexing. The article text does specifically mention, contrary to the comment by buidhe for example, Heathkit the company and tube tuners in general. This article has undergone a recent expansion and referencing. WP:DEMOLISH would suggest that the quickness to remove constructive and helpful improvements is discouraged. The text in the galleries is sourced and relevant and helps explain what each thing is and how it fits in the chronology. The main reason why the images aren't on the side of the paragraphs is due to space constraints. Maybe in the future the article will be long enough to not need a gallery; in the meantime, nothing in the policy contravenes it. Contrary to the IP's statement, the images are not indiscriminate but carefully selected to have a representation of the inside and outside of an American, Japanese, and German tuner (inside only at the moment), a tube tuner inside and outside showing the increasing number of vacuum tubes and components, a solid state with gyroscopic tuning versus a knob and the inside of a solid state tuner, and a newer digital tuner with a button panel and a digital watch like display. It is not important to be able to read the actual text in the images because the point is the interface and the complexity of the electronics. Gallery policy says if a point of contrast is being made, the gallery is OK. This one shows how the 60s tube tuners became progressively more complex (compare the simpler, fewer tubes of the Scott with the Sherwood front and back showing more complexity) before solid state and digital came in. I intentionally picked the best images as there are many more on commons, so the idea that this is indiscriminate is simply prima facie incorrect. This gallery is helping and not hurting, and the opposition feels like WP:IDONTLIKEIT grasping around for a policy justification that just ain't there. Much more redundant galleries have consensus on other articles, see lily for example. These images of tuners are additive and illustrative and portray variation alongside the narrative being portrayed in the article of increasing miniaturization and the digitalization of electronics. The article specifically discusses the changes in the industry from post-war USA to digital Japan, and that story is also shown in the images in a more evocative way. Andre🚐 19:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No. The gallery as it stands now has no context and is primary sourced. There would have to be secondary sources, a referenced intro, and photographs you can read. None of that exists now. Wikipedia policy is not "add it now, find sources and a rational later". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The question of WP:PRIMARY seems not relevant. PRIMARY allows the use of primary sources for simple facts, such as release information, as they are used in the gallery. Andre🚐 14:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "release information" is not a reason to have a gallery. Grouping images together to make some sort of synthetic claim requires (some reliable secondary source's) interpretation. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But what is the synthetic claim being made here? The article body already has sourced material about the development history of tuners. Andre🚐 22:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What does the gallery present to the reader if it is not making a claim? (i.e. referenced encyclopedic material?) Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 12:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  So you think the gallery is SYNTH but you don't know what the SYNTH it's supposedly advancing is? It's not making a claim, it's providing illustration beyond the text. It's an illustration of the development history of the tuner from 1960's tube tuners to the 1970s and 80s solid state to digital in the early 90s. How can that be SYNTH if you don't even know what it's supposedly SYNTH for? Andre🚐 20:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You can continue to WP:ICANTHEARYOU or you can read WP:IG again, your choice. Otherwise, this has become pointless. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But as I already said in the discussion above, IG specifically allows for galleries illustrating some point of contrast or providing context where the article cannot through prose. A gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. Just as we seek to ensure that the prose of an article is clear, precise and engaging, galleries should be similarly well-crafted. Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article while avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made. Worth quoting again since the RFC is now going on and participants may not read the prior discussions on this page. Andre🚐 23:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 
  Heathkit AJ-20 (USA; 1960)^[1]
• 
  H.H. Scott Stereomaster 370-B, 8 tubes (USA; 1962-1963)^[2][3]
• 
  Sherwood S-2100, 13 tubes (USA; 1963-1966)^[4]
• 
  S-2100, rear view
• 
  Siemens Studiomeister RS222 superheterodyne, (Germany; 1974-1977)^[5]
• 
  Marantz 150, analog tuning (USA; 1977)^[6]
• 
  Luxman T-34, solid state, analog tuning (Japan; 1978-1979)^[7]
• 
  inside view, T-34
• 
  Onkyo T-4000, digital tuning (Japan; 1990)^[8]

@Wtshymanski, you removed the citation needed tags with the summary "Vanity tag." I'm not familiar with that rationale. Could you please elaborate what this means? The TV tuner section is very poorly referenced. Andre🚐 22:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]