Jump to content

Talk:Roku: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Lexeus (talk | contribs)
Line 14: Line 14:
::Although I agree up to a point on sourcing issues with this article, I think it would have been a better way to go by adding an appropriate tag to the article ([[WP:TMC]]) with a note that it will be removed in a timeframe. If the questionable sections were not corrected in a appropriate reasonable time frame (1 month, not a year), then removed it. This article was not created over a few days, but a few years. The way the article stands now with the stripped edits, it looks like Wikipedia is favoring any other product such as [[Apple TV]], [[Chromecast]] and so, but avoid this product. [[User:Rivertown|Rivertown]] ([[User talk:Rivertown|talk]]) 19:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
::Although I agree up to a point on sourcing issues with this article, I think it would have been a better way to go by adding an appropriate tag to the article ([[WP:TMC]]) with a note that it will be removed in a timeframe. If the questionable sections were not corrected in a appropriate reasonable time frame (1 month, not a year), then removed it. This article was not created over a few days, but a few years. The way the article stands now with the stripped edits, it looks like Wikipedia is favoring any other product such as [[Apple TV]], [[Chromecast]] and so, but avoid this product. [[User:Rivertown|Rivertown]] ([[User talk:Rivertown|talk]]) 19:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Rivertown}} This content has already been on here for several years. I don't think extending it any longer would attract any more attention in my experience. Of course, if any of the useful information can be verified, then it's fine. [[User:Mdann52|Mdann52]] ([[User talk:Mdann52|talk]]) 07:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Rivertown}} This content has already been on here for several years. I don't think extending it any longer would attract any more attention in my experience. Of course, if any of the useful information can be verified, then it's fine. [[User:Mdann52|Mdann52]] ([[User talk:Mdann52|talk]]) 07:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2015 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Roku|answered=no}}
<!-- Begin request -->
Please can this page be reverted to it's state before the change on the 18th August 2015.

The user who decided this page had irrelevant information, and therefore needed deleting almost in it's entirety, does not appear to have any experience on this topic.

The information contained in this page gives a detailed summary on the generations of Roku boxes, which I cannot find anywhere else on the internet. I have used this deleted information on numerous occasions in order to differentiate between the different boxes which appear very similar but provide very different features.

As a minimum, please can you restore the Comparison Table towards the end of the article, or move the table into a separate page titled 'Comparison of Roku boxes' and add a link to the new page at the bottom of this page.

Many Thanks

Alex
<!-- End request -->
[[User:Lexeus|Lexeus]] ([[User talk:Lexeus|talk]]) 14:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:35, 20 August 2015


Article or promotional?

There is a question as if this page is promotional or not. If so, the Apple TV article may need a massive cleanup as well. Both articles contain the same information, which I believe are needed to provide information on both devices for what content (programming) is available on both as well as features (technical, etc) they both offer. Rivertown (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apple TV is far more sourced and balanced than this article was, hence why I've cut it down. Of course, if the removed information is sourced to an independent source, then it will be apprpriate to add - without the puffery or WP:UNDUE stuff of course. Mdann52 (talk) 07:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although I agree up to a point on sourcing issues with this article, I think it would have been a better way to go by adding an appropriate tag to the article (WP:TMC) with a note that it will be removed in a timeframe. If the questionable sections were not corrected in a appropriate reasonable time frame (1 month, not a year), then removed it. This article was not created over a few days, but a few years. The way the article stands now with the stripped edits, it looks like Wikipedia is favoring any other product such as Apple TV, Chromecast and so, but avoid this product. Rivertown (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rivertown: This content has already been on here for several years. I don't think extending it any longer would attract any more attention in my experience. Of course, if any of the useful information can be verified, then it's fine. Mdann52 (talk) 07:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2015

Please can this page be reverted to it's state before the change on the 18th August 2015.

The user who decided this page had irrelevant information, and therefore needed deleting almost in it's entirety, does not appear to have any experience on this topic.

The information contained in this page gives a detailed summary on the generations of Roku boxes, which I cannot find anywhere else on the internet. I have used this deleted information on numerous occasions in order to differentiate between the different boxes which appear very similar but provide very different features.

As a minimum, please can you restore the Comparison Table towards the end of the article, or move the table into a separate page titled 'Comparison of Roku boxes' and add a link to the new page at the bottom of this page.

Many Thanks

Alex Lexeus (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]