Talk:Roku

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

Ok, can you present sources to support the information I removed before it is restored (note: As I'm involved, I'm not marking as resolved). Mdann52 (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The whole point is, this information is a community developed resource, I could try and link you to the specs for every single box released by Roku, but it's not going to provide the same information you gain from the tabulated comparisons.

http://support.roku.com/entries/92636578-What-are-the-differences-between-the-Roku-2-model-2720-and-the-new-Roku-2-model-4210- http://support.roku.com/entries/92656187-What-are-the-differences-between-the-Roku-3-model-4200-and-the-new-Roku-3-model-4230- The above 2 links are about all the official information I could find other than wikipedia, but that doesn't cover any of the confusing situation with all the older boxes. If you insist on deleting harmless useful information, I don't want to waste my time trying to defend the hours spent by others writing up all the different sections, but the tabulated information at the end is important. To sum up, this information is valuable because the product is poorly documented by the companying producing it; why should you make the users such as myself suffer because the manufacturer doesn't provide references for all of the information? Lexeus (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

But then again, We aren't sutable just for a list of software/hardware updates. If the company isn't the best at doing this, then unfortunately this isn't our job either unfortunately. Why should Wikipedia host information purely because the manufacture does not want to host it? Mdann52 (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

We are talking about a comparison table of several generations of a manufactures box specifications, we are not talking about "a list of software/hardware updates"; as I said before, the most valuable information is contained in the table which I implore you to restore. I don't think wikipedia has to host anything, but given that this information is exactly the same type of information that is stored about countless other home electronics products, then there is no reason to pick on the roku for erasure, if you are adamant that wikipedia should erase this sort of information then I will follow suit and erase these pags too then: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_digital_media_players and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_TV . The manufacturer is interested in pushing their latest boxes which is fair enough, this information is for the benefit of the existing and 2nd hand market users. Roku isn't as big as intel, apple and amazon, therefore the community resources for documentation are sparse, that makes wikipedia more important as a resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexeus (talk • contribs) 19:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

That comparison chart was about the only reason I used this wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.144.189 (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

https://wikidevi.com/wiki/Roku For anyone who needs a comparison chart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.144.189 (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to see it restored as well. I'm sure somebody can quote chapter and verse about why it should be taken down, but to that person I say... relax. Just as it's not the end of the world if it isn't restored, it's also not the end of the world if it is. Cyraxote (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

What I don't understand is if Wikipedia has tags for this situation (WP:TMC), why aren't they being used in this situation to alert users that massive deletions would occur shortly if not sourced? Why have them if they are not going to be used first? Rivertown (talk) 05:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I get the impression that Mdann52 has never used a Roku box and doesn't really know anything about it, and therefore sees Roku as some little company trying to promote their box on wikipedia; whereas of course a big company like Apple everyone knows and therefore there is no question over whether their massively overpriced almost useless AppleTV streaming box needs to be advertised all over this place! I don't think he is really interested in restoring any of it.... Lexeus (talk) 13:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Is this general trend going to continue with all of the generations and types of Macbook hardware, which is pretty much the only way to figure out which particular specs your machine has and which code equates to it? If you have that type of information for Apple hardware, I don't see what the issue is for having it maintained by your community for this particular hardware. This edit essentially rendered this page useless and is no more than a stub. At this point you should apply the stub tag with how short it is. And in general I like this trend, lets do our best to make Wikipedia less relevant. 71.33.164.68 (talk) 12:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Please stop unilaterally removing huge chunks of information without building a consensus. Damicatz (talk) 02:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@Damicatz: a lot of this is unsourced or original research (ie. model comparisons). If it is sourced, then I have no objections to it staying. However, as I've said, until then, I don't see why it is appropriate to retain this. We are supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not some tech comparison website. Mdann52 (talk) 07:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

 Not done All, in order to close this edit request so that it doesn't keep the request backlog open, I have opened up this discussion below. Please come to a consensus and based on that answer, the article can be modified as necessary. I will recuse myself from the discussion below so that I can close the edit request out. Thank you. Inomyabcs (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should the Feature comparison table be restored?

Based on What Wikipedia is not, should the Feature comparison table as seen in this version be restored? Inomyabcs (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)