Talk:GoPro/Archives/2013

Resolution

>to 3 Megapixel digital cameras to its current configuration of having fixed lens cameras with a wide 170 degree angle in high definition 1080p broadcast quality video

1080p "Full HD" resolution is 2 Megapixels. Did the resolution really degrade? 84.23.56.120 (talk)

The "3 Megapixel digital cameras" refers to still photos. I think some of the early models only took stills, not video. The current HD models take 12MP stills, so the resolution is increasing. Though maybe that line could be clarified.--Vclaw (talk) 13:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Language

From the Hero 3 Black Edition description: "2X more powerful" - what does "powerful" mean? This is marketing language and shouldn't be included in this article. 93.132.228.110 (talk) 10:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The entire thing reads like marketing speak. Candidate for 'News Release' warning? Shn525 (talk) 13:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

This article is a great advertisement. 124.148.162.51 (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually a little uncomfortable with about half of this article myself. Most of the Hero3 section reads like a press release. Just not sure I have the time to devote to rewriting it. Bagheera (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

It is indeed an advertisement. I'm not normally into tags but I've tagged it as such and will return in due course to see what I can do to tidy it up. Parrot of Doom 10:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Technical specs

removing "Average Bitrates HERO3 Black Edition" is not a good idea for me... i searched this info on google and that's why I found the gopro page on wikipedia so maybe someone could re-add this section, for example, in a 'navbox' or something like that. (sorry for my bad english) Slyworld (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

This referred to one specific camera while the article referred to GoPro's universe. If you want it on Wikipedia then it would go into an article on the Go Pro Black. One troubling thing about how it was presented was that it lacked a reference. Wikipedia is not original resource.Americasroof (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia is not a consumer-advice guide. The detailed specs would belong on the company website, and that could then be referenced here, e.g., with a link. jfeise (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

i've put a neutral, factual note about the problems of hero3 black edition, but was deleted; those troubles are very well known among the users and tech comunity (just check amazon for example); so what? i have zero interests in it (nor i'm a typing hero...); — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.164.71.160 (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about what is "well known." To be included, reliable sources have to be referenced, not some "check amazon" stuff. I suggest you read up on WP:NOR. jfeise (talk) 23:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Competitor links

I cut the straight links, but was reverted by an editor who wrongly assumed that I had a conflict of interest. Comparing the camera to another and sourcing it to an article titled "Sony treads on GoPro’s turf with WiFi-capable Action Cam series" is fine and relevant, but sourcing a comparison to a product site (which does not mention or draw any comparison to GoPro) is WP:OR. We should find reviews that draw comparisons, and use those as sources. --McGeddon (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

there are many competitors or cloners that are simply not mentioned; — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.164.71.160 (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)