Talk:Roku, Inc./Archive 1

Initial text
Someone should add something here about the new device they created for Netflix — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.111.49 (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Roku player
The roku player plays netflix movies directly on your tv. It has no web interface to search through movies so you have to add movies to your instant queue online and then you can access it thru the set top box. It also offers amazon vod which does have a web interface. They refer to each as channels (netflix and amazon) and they just added a MLB channel (http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/subscriptions/index.jsp?c_id=mlb&affiliateId=mlbMENUBANNERNAV). They are supposed to be adding 9 more channels one of which will be blip.tv (http://blip.tv/faq#distribution) and an unconfirmed rumor youtube will join the fold (http://www.zatznotfunny.com/2009-03/whats-next-for-roku/). Another unconfirmed rumor and an overall wonderful dream would be them adding hulu (http://www.engadget.com/2009/06/02/hulu-coming-to-roku-video-player/) but that could go either way. This player could very well be the wave of the future in some parts of the country (USA-Where broadband is available. Satellite Internet is still in it's infancy and won't likely work and the FAPs All Providers have will kill most chances at it working properly.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.73.217 (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the roku player should have it's own page
You have a separate walkman page and not just a sony page. This device has a great potential and very well will be historically interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.73.217 (talk) 05:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

this is the six company by this guy
2 of his other companies made an impact so shouldn't he have a bio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.191.119 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

roku
shouldn't there be more info on this company or at least some of his products namely the roku player? Or is wikipedia just going to placate to apple and the major name brands? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.191.119 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

this article needs to be expanded
there are two new players and the players need there own pages. The founder should have a page as he's done quite abit. There needs to be moreSerialjoepsycho (talk) 14:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

http://news.cnet.com/i/bto/20090316/StartScreenV1.jpg

theres an image or get one that they have availible for you on there site.

http://www.roku.com/about/imageresources

you'll also find the copyright notice on the website.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

pronunciation
If 'roku' is indeed '6' in Japanese, then the pronunciation guide is incorrect. I hesitate to attempt a correction. Basically, the word is pronounced pretty much exactly as it is written, except for the 'r' that begins 'roku', which is pronounced much like the flap 'd' in 'ladder'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.166.173.227 (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Video Streaming from Local Source?
The article mentions connectivity with local networks, but does not make it clear if Roku's streaming video boxes are able to stream video from a local video source (i.e. local HDD of a networked computer). Is this one of the capabilities of any of the units? This would be useful information to include. -Grammaticus Repairo (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

.

Roku 2 HD is now being called Roku HD on website
Just noticed that Roku is calling the Roku 2 HD the Roku HD on their website. Very confusing for consumers. 71.233.152.107 (talk) 06:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This is now updated. Msw1002 (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The Roku 2 HD has been discontinued, and there's a new Roku HD model. --Traal (talk) 20:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Please include what the functionality & limitations of the Expansion MicroSD slot are...
My understanding is that it is expansion of the amount of channels the unit can have, and not as many may incorrectly infer from an absence of it's explanation in the article, streaming of video, movie, or other content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.243.119 (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Also it would be helpful to state that models such as 3050x & 3050r are the same device with one packaged for Retail @ Brick & Motar stores and the other direct sales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.243.119 (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Dealing with Smusser and "Instant Roku Channel"
There is a person - id Smusser - that keeps adding to the page info on something named at first "Instant Roku Channel" and now "Instant TV Channel". That is not a "channel" in the sense of the channel lists but a commercial service of dubious notability. I feel their persistence to re-add it is for the sake of marketing/increased exposure to potential clients. I am regular on Roku developer forums and have not seen it being discussed as being popular - or even mentioned off-hand. Me getting into undo/redo spats with Smusser is getting old fast. He/she seems the only person finding this "Instant TV Channel" notable - but what if i am the only one considering it non-notable. What to do? List of pushes: PS. after a search seems that S.Musser is the author of that "Instant Channel", which makes it an unsavory self-promotion EnTerr (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roku,_Inc.&diff=prev&oldid=501665086
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roku,_Inc.&diff=prev&oldid=590594547
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roku&diff=prev&oldid=604362266
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roku&diff=prev&oldid=605545114
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roku&diff=prev&oldid=606821119
 * Have you considered contacting him on his talk page? Talk and try discuss it. If that don't work then there are other things to do but I'd try that first. I agree with your original removal. It's not notable. However not all of the channels listed are notable. All of them are a commercial product. The only difference being that this is not an actual channel.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The most recent reasons given for the reversion of my edit are "not notable" and "not of encyclopedic notablility". Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article, however due weight does. About 140 out of roughly 1450 non-game Roku channels currently in the public Roku Channel Store were built using Instant TV Channel (ITVC). Generating the code for almost 10% of the channels in the on-screen Roku Channel Store might be considered as having some due weight. Another justification given for removing ITVC is that it is not referenced significantly in the Roku Developer Forum. The typical user of ITVC has no need to use the Roku Developer Forum as it consists almost entirely of discussions about the Roku SDK. ITVC is an additional method, besides the Roku SDK and NDK, of service creation for the Roku players because it allows content owners to build Roku channels without the use the Roku SDK, the Roku NDK, or the Roku Developer Forum. It seems to me that a brief mention of ITVC is appropriate in the Service Creation paragraph of this article. Smusser (talk) 11:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that it's not mentioned in the Roku developer forum is actually meaningless. It could be hardly said that forum is a reliable source to show notability. As far as notability you really need a better argument. WP:Notability does not govern article content. However content notability is governed by by the principles in CAT:CONTENT and WP:DUE. I have to assume EnTerr is making claims on the basis of WP:NOT though I'll let them make their own argument. I also feel the need to point out that you say alot but provide little in the way of sources. 10% of Roku no gaming channels are made by this service? Do you have a WP:RS Reliable source? I think you first what we need here in this conversation is for Enterr to further explain his policy opinion on notability here.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Personally WP:PROMOTION comes to mind. I can't really see any reason to mention this but to promote it. WP:INDISCRIMINATE makes me question the enclopedic value of this.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Roku player photo
Hello, I'm writing from Roku wondering if we could change the photo of the Roku player. While that is in fact a Roku player on the page it is very old and no longer available. The current models are smaller with rounded edges. Pictures can be found on the Roku Web site and there are images for downloading on the press page under images. Thank you for considering. Someeagleeye (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes we could. The original was taken from there. Go ahead.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 13:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

trimmed the channel list per WP:IINFO
I trimmed the list. The lists take up to much space. This is a partial list. Wikipedia is not a Roku Channel store database. I cut channels and games that lacked a wiki article themselves. A whole lot more can and should be cut.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm going to cut the services that you can't get directly from Roku.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Removing the 3 local channels WISC, WTHR, KLAS tv.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Removing the clip channels.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 14:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thinking about cutting the section that has both free and premium channels. At this point it's really going to be subjective on which channels to remove. I'm going to start cutting some channels where their niche seems over represented like the Christian TV channels.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I just randomly removed channels this time. I'd like to thin up the list a little more but later.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I added the Globalize/US template, as the article doesn't take into account availability of channels outside of the US. --212.135.65.247 (talk) 14:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC) ThanksSerialjoepsycho (talk) 06:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Adding 2014 product launches
Hello - There were two new product launches this year that are not yet reflected in this article. The Roku Streaming Stick (HDMI version) in March and the first Roku TV models in August. The announcements can be found on the Roku Web site on the Press Room page. To provide readers with current information, can short sections for these be added where the product descriptions are? Appreciate your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RokuCorp (talk • contribs) 20:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. The HDMI streaming stick is already there.The TV will be added eventually. We aren't actually here to promote this product, however.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Roku Models Comparison Table
For the people that come to the Roku main page looking for the feature comparison table, it can be found here:

That's the version before User:Mdann52 started deleting content. There is pending discussion at the end of this page, add your opinion there. EnTerr (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)
 * I cannot speak with the authority of your overall wiki experience (seeing you have thousands of edits). I can speak however for my experience with this very page and I have been checking on it and making minor edits over the last 4 years. I did not know there is anything in dare need of fixing, since nothing was flagged so. We look at different aspects though - I am not an expert in Wiki administration - but i am an expert in computer/IT/software domain, including Roku players. If things that need fixing were marked as Rivertown suggested, i know for myself i would have filled-in some of the missing info over the years - and so would have done other contributors. Nobody was complaining about sourcing however. Why not give a chance to heal a wound instead of chopping a leg? Let's do the right thing, restore the page and mark the issues... EnTerr (talk) 09:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Because they can't.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I was looking and I checked a number of times to verify and seems this article is about the Roku and not apple tv, chromecast, eddies new uberbox 500 or what ever else. Mentioning another article really is a substantive reason to include or remove anything from here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:11, 29 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)
 * 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)
 * please STOP and restrain yourself from making the massive modifications you tried in the last week! The comparison table is worthwhile to stay, it is the best info available on the Net, better than the Roku Inc support pages. I do not work for Roku but have extensive knowledge on the boxes. You might be right some other edits were needed - but not from what i scanned in your changes, you were doing semi-random edits and had worsened the header. Make small changes that can be humanly reviewed. If you can't be bothered, please redirect your improvement efforts to other pages of wikipedia, thank you. The mere fact so many different people reverted your edits did not flag you doing something wrong here?! EnTerr (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree 100% with Alex. I visited this page earlier this month and found it enormously helpful. Now it is nearly useless. Please bring the "Features Comparison Table" back! Ricara (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

❌ 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)


 * Here's a rather convoluted RFC.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * But none the less Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It's a good call to just cut the ever growing feature list. This should effect the channel list as well. While I'm not saying should be no channel list, The current list borders being indiscriminate. Only major channels should be listed, that is major channels in the USA and international. It shouldn't have a free or premium list as we really aren't here to advertise. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Broadly speaking, i agree. I remember you were pushing to delete lots of channels but while everyone agrees on both ends there are "significant" and "insignificant" apps, it's hard to draw a clear distinction in the middle. Can we come with a way to determine significance of a channel? One thing that comes to mind is number of ratings (can be seen on Roku web store pages and gives idea of the magnitude of current installs). EnTerr (talk) 02:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Using the Roku Rating would be like using a facebook friendslist.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a FB "friends" list - but rather like using "number of likes" on a Facebook page to judge the amount of traction a cause is getting. Which is a "thing" in use. Using the number of ratings would actually be even better than that because the rating process on Roku is un-forced and it counts the "dis-like"s as well. It would be more like using Google Play number of downloads to judge app popularity - which (as far as clustering in buckets is concerned) is totally valid. EnTerr (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice spin, Except well there's that whole wikipedia policy thing.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Less attempt at sarcasm and more at communicating your thoughts, please? I struggled trying to guess what you meant above with "would be like using a facebook friendslist" (how would it be like a friendlist?!? ). Still not sure if i got it right - but i have no idea now what you mean with the "whole wikipedia policy thing". Be specific, please. Or very specific. EnTerr (talk) 10:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Like I said originally, the comparison table is important and it's not turning wikipedia into a tech comparison website; it is a definition table enabling users to identify one box rather than another. The other elements of the article that were removed largely perhaps are inappropriate and even information such as channels that are available I can see some reason to remove Lexeus (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * the table was removed by me mainly because it appeared to be original reasearch, as opposed to back up with reliable sources. Mdann52 (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Then you did the wrong thing, since most of the table was sourced and with footnotes! If you have genuine doubts in some of the information, why don't you flag the particular piece you have doubts about and give time omissions to be filled-in instead of nonchalantly deleting information that has been collected/corrected/reviewed by hundreds of people over years of time? Your behavior is destructive EnTerr (talk) 02:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * YES on the comparison table, KEEP it in the article. Also can we have @Mdann52 flogged and escorted out the premises, while not thanking him for his help? If minor edits/sourcing are needed, just flag them - but pls do not do drive-by shootings. Mdann52 did a page massacre and then persevered re-reverting to his version after 4 different people reverted on 4 separate occasions his "contribution". That's editing in bad faith, isn't it? EnTerr (talk) 22:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * PS. here is an additional argument about the usefulness of the table - check how many places on the Net have been linking to the Roku#Feature_comparison, the table in question here. Google search for pages linking back seems wonky for in-page anchors but still. Try search for link:/wikipedia.org/wiki/Roku#Feature_comparison EnTerr (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please do not edit contested content while there is an open discussion. Further reversion of contested content will result in a different action. Please keep the discussion civil and await the community's decision. See edit warring for further information. Thank you. Inomyabcs (talk) 04:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link - why are Mdann52 deletions allowed to stay while he/she engages in "edit warring"? Check history of Mdann52 edits - they even broke that "three-revert rule" - shouldn't they be blocked from editing and their "contributions" reverted?! EnTerr (talk) 01:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC) There is only ONE person warring here:
 * 07:14, 19 August 2015‎ Mdann52 (4,389 bytes) (-23,539)‎
 * 20:56, 18 August 2015‎ Mdann52 (4,389 bytes) (-23,539)‎
 * 13:38, 18 August 2015‎ Mdann52 (4,389 bytes) (-23,539)‎
 * 08:45, 18 August 2015‎ Mdann52 (4,389 bytes) (-23,539)‎
 * Here's a convenient link to WP:ANI. This would be one of the few places to have this conversation. The articles talk page is not one of them.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * remove Wikipedia should not make up for a lack of official information with unsourced feature tables. Also agree with Serialjoepsycho that the channel list should be either cut down or removed. Mdann52 (talk) 08:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Much of the table had footnotes with the sources. Most of the info from the table you can also find in a single place, http://sdkdocs.roku.com/display/sdkdoc/Developer+Guide#DeveloperGuide-14RokuModelsandFeatures - although not as clearly organized. I am almost certain this info was in the references list at the bottom already. Again, why did you delete the table and most of the references instead of flagging the page or section as needing attention? EnTerr (talk) 02:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * KEEP the comparison table. Removing it makes the entire article pointless and diminishes Wikipedia's value as a reference. - Damicatz (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment There's abit of a problem with the keep votes. They are just votes. WP:WIKINOTVOTE We aren't in a democracy. This is not a popularity contest. You need a little more than "Hey George lets keep it and name it Fred."-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * KEEP As Damicatz has stated, the feature comparison table is a valuable reference. The table should not have been arbitrarily removed without consensus.  The consensus is that most users find it useful and want it to remain on the page.  Mdann52 shouldn't decide for everyone else here on Wikipedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.38.147.4 (talk) 23:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * No table Summoned by bot. The table should not be included. Largely per WP:USEPROSE, but also taking into account WP:IINFO. If we have nothing interesting to say about particular developments of the system or features, they probably aren't worth including. If a singe source talks about the features, as an editor above said, then put that as an EL at the end if people want an exhaustive list of features for every single model, but having a table isn't useful, gives a lot of information that isn't necessarily notable or interesting, and the important information could be included as prose rather than a table. Wugapodes (talk) 01:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am trying to understand here - you consider the features table too big to be part of the Roku article prose? I am guessing i am the "an editor above said", so to clarify - MOST of the information can be sourced at the link i gave but it is not as well organized as it was here. There are additional sources which you can see referenced before the Mdann52 massacre. So simply referring out of wikipedia is not a solution. As somebody that deals often with Roku players, i can assure you the information as it was presented was both notable and interesting. See also feedback here by other people. See also how many people have contributed/updated that table over the years. EnTerr (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying that the table is not prose, and that the information should be incorporated as prose. A table is not prose, it is a special kind of list. I am saying that the information that is in the table should be written as prose. Per WP:USEPROSE: "In an article, significant items should normally be mentioned naturally within the text rather than merely listed." Currently all this page does is list the features of each individual model which doesn't actually explain anything about the Roku or put any of this information in context. Wikipedia is not a changelog, and we don't need to list every single model of Roku that ever has or will be put out with every feature it did or didn't have. If there is something important to say about a specific model or a design decision about adding or removing a feature, that should be expanded on in the prose, but the table is not encyclopedic. Wugapodes (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Your quote says that the most significant items should be mentioned organically - sure. That does not negate a table though. I am not questioning usefulness of prose - however tables have their place too, provided it is very easy to scan and see which model has what features. That's quite important in the case of Roku Inc, which keep changing which models have analog outputs, which ones have remote with a headphone jack, USB port and so on. Tables exist and are popular, see IPhone and Apple_TV. Are you saying we should delete the tables from those articles, would you do it? And if not, why is it okay for them to list every possible model of iPhone there but we shan't do it here? If the objection was about the table being too garish with the green-yellow-red highlights, i'll agree. If you want to expand on some of the important info from the table in prose - IN ADDITION to keeping the table - that's welcome too. EnTerr (talk) 06:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a changelog. We are not discussing Apple TV or iPhone models, we are discussing this one. If we were discussing changes on those pages, I would likely make the same arguments as I did here, but stating alone that other stuff exists doesn't negate the points I brought up. Wugapodes (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I wanted to give you a simile to the case at hand, so you can weigh your feelings comparatively. It appears given a chance you would have voted to de-table the given examples too. Fair enough then, your opinion seems consistent. EnTerr (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * KEEP Using prose would be nothing more than parroting the source; it's easier to access certain information in a table than in prose. Whether it is "notable or interesting" is a matter of opinion, no? Cyraxote (talk) 02:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Notable on Wikipedia has a particular meaning - WP:N, so isn't really a manner of opinion. Mdann52 (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And yet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_guidelines_do_not_apply_to_content_within_an_article (if there's a way to shorten that link, feel free). Cyraxote (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Notability- and yet what? You'd have to be more clear. Posting a blue link isn't an argument. The link you point out actually specifies the polices which govern notability for article content.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Just because information exists doesn't mean it must be included. If we extended your argument, we shouldn't even have wikipedia because all prose would just parroting the source (or original research). That's why I opposed per WP:IINFO, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to curate information. This information is not curated in the slightest. WP:USEPROSE expands on why tables and lists should be used sparingly, most notably because they fail to give context. I don't know what the importance of a particular processor is, and the article doesn't tell me, it just tells me they have one. I don't know why the designers chose to remove then re-add wifi-direct remotes in models 4210 and 4220, and the article doesn't tell me. As it stands it's just a glorified list of statistics on Roku design features without any additional or contextualizing information. Wugapodes (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Those are good questions - so mark somehow what you find in need to be explained or ask on the talk page like you just did, subject to be explained/expanded. Do not condemn a table just because you don't understand the importance of some columns like say amount of RAM or ROM sizes. Does IPhone also offend you, it lists lots of technical detail too? EnTerr (talk) 06:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The entire table needs to be explained. That's the purpose of Wikipedia. An encyclopedia doesn't just list statistics or hardware specs, it explains them. That's why I argue to not include the table because every single part of it would be better included as explanatory and expository prose. Rather than pointing to other stuff, why don't you try explaining what information the table adds that can't be explained through prose. Wugapodes (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The table is a great reference for those that are seeking information. I know i was referring to it all the time and i have heard people say that this very table on Wikipedia is the best source of comparative information on Roku players. Yes, i know - shame on the Roku Inc company not bothering to put in a single place such reference - but that's the beauty of community work, being able to assemble from different sources and overcome deficiencies. It is not that all of the table cannot be put in ver-bogus form, it is that it will be less useful. Let me give examples how each column is helpful:
 * date introduced/discontinued columns allow with a quick scan to figure out the status of a player (age, discontinued or not). That can be done with a visual timeline surely - if someone would sit to draw it and keep updating it (but who? not me)
 * video outputs is relevant for people to figure out which player they need in case say they have old TV (answer from the table - from current generation, only #2710 fits)
 * audio output - to decide which player needed, if going to use optical or stereo cables
 * network - decide which one, depending if want to use wired or particular flavor of WiFi
 * USB/microSD - relevant if will consider playing video from USB drive, also additional memory for channels
 * remote - whether direct-line-of-sight is needed and can be included in universal remote (IR) or uses RF but can potentially cause WiFi problems; additionally, some of the remotes have headphones for private listening
 * processor/ram/rom - relevant to games and also which players have the "new" Netflix/YouTube "experience"
 * The answer to all these questions is not at all trivial (as in "always buy the higher model#/higher priced"), since some features are only lower tiers, others in uppers - and they keep changing what is in which tier. To top it off, the company naming policy is inconsistent - over the years there have been 3 distinct "Roku LT" players, 2 completely different "Roku HD"s, 3 different "Roku 2" ones (one of which had sub-models, Roku 2 HD, 2 XD, 2 XS). All of that - while transcribable - is much easier and convenient to look up in a table. EnTerr (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep the table. Provides a good aid for readers of the article. Wikipedia is not censored. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please clarify how this is censoring the Wikipedia article by removing? This just seems to be an opinion with an unrelated policy. Mdann52 (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree there is no obvious censorship here.No one is trying to remove possibly objectionable or offensive material to ensure that the material is acceptable to all readers. The attempt is to ensure that the article meets wikipedia standards this not censorship. Me-123567-Me does seem to understand what censorship is.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * And would you please in turn clarify how is it that "the table was removed by me mainly because it appeared to be original reasearch, as opposed to back up with reliable sources"? How is it that the linked sources were not enough for you and why didn't you just mark the areas you question? You seem to avoid explaining your own - what it appears to be - hooliganism . EnTerr (talk) 06:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you feel there is any misconduct please don't hesitate to take it to ANI. It's suited for ANI. It's not suited for this talk page or specifically an RFC for this article.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think there was misconduct, yes - but i don't have the time nor the experience to prosecute it further. What i asked here however is different - for @Mdann52 to justify his position in the vote, rather than trying to poke holes in others vote arguments. That is RFC relevant, no? I see you above quoting {We aren't in a democracy. This is not a popularity contest. You need a little more than "Hey George lets keep it and name it Fred."} EnTerr (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:ANI this is where you go to "prosecute it further". Your WP:ASPERSIONS are not relevant to an RFC. They would be relevant on this users talk page or the appropriate forum.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I find the info very useful and many product articles are essentially used by users who want to reearch a product before a purchase and this kind of chart is helpful to them. AaronY (talk) 01:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Most of the arguments here for keeping is exactly what wikipedia is not. One person says that will help potential customers decide which one to buy but WP:PROMO Wikipedia is not an advertisement. I'm looking but not seeing a substantive reason to include. Everything added up to a keep really seems to be "I just like it" argument.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your generalizations "most of the arguments", "everything [...] seems to be" etc. Multiple points were made on how the model comparison table is useful, they were not "because i like it". You are incorrect on it being advertisement - there is no advocacy, propaganda, self-promotion, etc - check and see nothing from WP:PROMO applies. Having a reference handy is what encyclopedias are about. That's why there are tables like IPad, Comparison of Google Nexus smartphones, Apple_TV, WD_TV . (No need to tell me existence of other tables is not a decisive argument - my point is we don't live in a vacuum and tables are a well-established way of summarizing data, including Wikipedia) EnTerr (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's already clear at this point that you disagree. I notice that from all the aspersions you've cast and all the wikilawyering you've done. Again fail to see any meaningful, reasonable, or substantive reason for inclusion, but is very clear that you just like it. We don't live in a vacuum and that's not even relevant to note. This is the Roku article. This is not the iPad article. They may a number of reasons for what they do in the iPad article. I don't know. I haven't taken part in the iPad article. If you would like to make an argument similar to one they have made then by all means go ahead. The current argument that it should be included because it will help people buy their products is not a very good one.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't generalize on my opinion either! Your interpretation is wrong, it is not "you just like it". Read above after "The table is a great reference for those that are seeking information" and if you have comments, provide them there, don't throw hearsay dust here. Again, most arguments are not "it will help people buy their products". Also can you go easy on hard-powered, fancy words like "cast aspersions", "wikilawyering" etc - being a simple country Wiki-Chicken, i'd appreciate it ;-) EnTerr (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And yet your argument is again it will help people buy their products. If those words confuse you then look them up. There may be an encyclopedia lying around here somewhere.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, not at all. You are confused on my argument (mind projection fallacy, i guess). Having tech specs in a table is not a buyer's guide - just like List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita is *not* a shopping guide for legal or illegal immigrants (one can determine the highest GDP countries from there, sure - but usefulness is much broader) EnTerr (talk) 03:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not there's mind projection fallacy, it's that it doesn't matter that you just like it. I understand that you just like it and will do anything at all to keep it in. This shown by all the aspersions you have continually cast and the wikilawyering you have done. Well it's probably not fair to call it wikilawyering since you don't actually base anything in wikipedia policy or outside of your own personal preferences. If you would like to actually offer a wikipedia policy based argument at any time please don't let me stop you.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Wrap-up
We are coming up on about 30 days for having this open and I would like to see if we can close this out with some agreement. I have a couple of points I noticed in the discussion above. One, is that the Roku developers have a similar table at their Developer Guide. By that information alone, it would fail the reliable sources test. However, some of the information in the table is referenced by third parties (processor). Two, it looks like it passes the discriminate collection test but needs to be tied into the article better. Below are some proposals for the community to look at over the next 7 days. Inomyabcs (talk) 08:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment It meets the discriminate test? Interesting. Is this one one those things where you actually are gonna to make a case for that or is this one of those things like, "I am the great and powerful Oz and I have spoken!"-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I can expand on it above if you like, but my test was looking at the prose of the first generation topic with the multitude of different video formats and seeing it in tabular format actually helped me to understand it better. I would recommend that the columns that all have the same answer be removed though since they aren't a benefit. The processor column is notable since it has been discussed by secondary sources. And besides, kind of hard to be Oz if my brain is made of straw. It took me a long time to learn my ABCs. Inomyabcs (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So you just like it, you were trying to convey that with "it passes the discriminate collection test", and you lack an argument for it's inclusion? The Scarecrow had brain of straw. The "Great and powerful Oz" was just a Carny from Kansas who tricked the citizens of Oz into believing he was a Powerful Wizard with smoke and mirrors.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What fails the reliable sources test? I'm not sure I understand your point, could you please explain more? Wugapodes (talk) 05:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. I could have probably have been more clear but if using the Developer Guide as the source for the tables, then they are considered a primary source. Here is where I muddled it a bit, primary sources can be used as long as they are relevant but should be reinforced by secondary sources as much as possible. Inomyabcs (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no actual need to back up this primary sources with secondary sources. There are no Analytical or interpretive claims being made.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * As it stands, the table fails not a reliable source is mostly from a primary source. However, the guidelines state should and could be restored if It should have more secondary sources. Are editors willing to expand the sources? edited Inomyabcs (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, No, or brief Comment
 * Yes. Please flag what needs better sourcing when restored EnTerr (talk) 17:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment- This strangely enough is a reliable source. It doesn't need to be flagged. It's a self published source that meets WP:ABOUTSELF.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What? I'm confused about why we're talking about the table as a source? Wugapodes (talk) 05:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that's @Inomyabcs checking on @Mdann52's original claim - sourcing was Mdann52's justification for deleting the table in the first place. See above "the table was removed by me mainly because it appeared to be original reasearch, as opposed to back up with reliable sources." and "remove Wikipedia should not make up for a lack of official information with unsourced feature tables.". Frankly i think the removal should be rejected on the bogosity of the OP claim alone (akin to fruit of the poisonous tree) instead of looking further, for additional reasons to axe it - but i don't know the bylaws here. EnTerr (talk) 18:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Save the wikilawyering and take it to WP:ANI already.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * In order to better align with notability and integrate the content of the table with the article, should the tables be split, collapsed, and integrated into the generation topics in the article?
 * Yes, No, or brief Comment
 * No, i explained above the usefulness of the table (ctrl-F to search "how each column is helpful") EnTerr (talk) 17:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe, I'd support this as a compromise (My preferred choice is Mdann's below). I'm still unsure as to what important material is better presented as a table than prose, but multiple contextualized tables are better than one massive one without context. Wugapodes (talk) 05:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I work at Roku, and I use this table a lot, it really is the best source of model info short of spending a few hours trolling our internal wiki to compile the same information. It has a few minor errors in terms of what device belongs to which generation, but, nothing substantial. Note that it has been a good number of years since I edited a wikipedia article, maybe 14 years. So please forgive any errors in this text entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbrave (talk • contribs) 22:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks for chiming in! I guess is okay for you to cast a vote here too, if you want - as long as you have already disclosed conflict of interest. I am sure our big-city wikilawyer :) (Voldemort/Wzwor/Simpleminded/Firedup from Roku forums - is that you?! pls disclose your conflict of interest too!) will let us know if there is a problem. EnTerr (talk) 03:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have a conflict of interest to disclose but if you would like to fucking persue this avenue further then take it to WP:ANI or WP:COIN. It beyond time for you to stop casting aspersions. If you can't competently take your baseless bad faith accusations to the appropriate forum then keep them to your damn self. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Follow-up to the question above. Are editors willing to expand the prose in the second and third generation topics to reference the material in the table?
 * Yes, No, or brief Comment
 * Yes but please describe here or elsewhere what needs expanding (to me seems self-explanatory the yes/no presence of particular video/usb/network/etc connectors) EnTerr (talk) 17:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment If it's important enough to be in a table, it's important enough to be explained in the prose is my opinion on the matter. Wugapodes (talk) 05:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Additional comment by Mdann52 (talk)

 * Should we add a link to the Developers guide in the "External links" section instead?


 * Yes, No or brief Comment
 * Yes as proposer. Mdann52 (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * care to expand? Your initial reasoning of "unsourced feature tables" / "table was removed [...] because it appeared to be original research" did not hold water per multiple editors. There are primary and secondary sources for the table. And more can be added - if any issues, they are correctable. EnTerr (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, in lieu of a table or tables If it is used as a source, an EL is not in line with policy. If a table is important and already exists, it is better for the article to be prose about those changes or features and refer to the extant table in an EL if readers want more information. Wugapodes (talk) 05:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * what's an "EL", have mercy on a non-pro editor? There is no table outside Wikipedia that presents models tech.specs as concisely and accessible as the deleted one. Somebody from Roku Co just confirmed that above. The information is available but is scattered around (sources can be shown; some are SDK docs, some are news/media articles, some may even be hardware teardowns) EnTerr (talk) 09:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * External Links. While we listen to you new plea about the guy from roku posting do we ignore WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Your argument ignores this policy.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call this table they have in their documentation "scattered about". He's from Roku Co and I'm the queen of England, it doesn't matter who you claim to be (especially since we can't verify that), it's about whether the arguments actually hold water. The purpose of an encyclopedia is not to simply state facts but to contextualize the information. I have explained above why I think prose is more suitable in this regard, and the fact that a very similar table exists online makes me far less willing to simply reproduce it and be done. Further, we aren't here to help people determine what Roku to buy, so if you want to convince me the table is highly important, your arguments need to be more robust than "consumers find it useful". Wugapodes (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * i hear you on not willing "to simply reproduce [a table] and be done". But this is not an "either - or" mutually exclusive situation. In addition to the table, I doubt anybody will object if you write the prose that you feel is missing - or put a request on the talk page for other editors. A table deletion is not a real leverage to make other editors do the prose-writing, right? Re usefulness of table, i already answered you in detail above 9/15, search for "The table is a great reference for those that are seeking information". Re the table as a "buyers guide", that's a straw-man raised repeatedly by @Serialjoepsycho - not me. See my answer above "Having tech specs in a table is not a buyer's guide". A shovel is a tool and not an assault weapon (even if one ostensibly can assault with a shovel) EnTerr (talk) 10:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes Wugapodes sums it up well.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely Not - the table in the dev.guide is not a good substitute, it has less info and in more technical form; vs the wiki table uses multiple sources, digested for a "casual" reader. Also, this is invalid proposal by @Mdann52, not part of the Wrap-up by @Inomyabcs on the RFC. You don't get free "do-overs" for not liking the outcome. EnTerr (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * this was discussed by other editors up above, hence why it was raised. As has been said, WP:ANI is the correct venue to go if there is misconduct. Mdann52 (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * it was discussed but not the consensus. Aren't we supposed to follow the guidance in structuring this or can we/you say "screw that and start from 0"?! EnTerr (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This RFC was malformed in the first place. The Wrap ignores the view that this should be removed which was originally represented in this RFC. This reinserts it. Your argument is hot smoke and wikilawyering.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * True, having this option was missed and I apologize for any confusion. Inomyabcs (talk) 13:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * actually, when was replacing a table by external link "discussed by other editors up above"? I looked and can't find it. Seems you bring a new proposal for vote here, hence i called it a "do-over". EnTerr (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Common sense trumps process. Though on the note of process you don't actually make a case with your wikilawyering.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Nope AaronY (talk) 03:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Care to expand AaronY? Mdann52 (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * See my previous comment above. AaronY (talk) 08:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Comparison of Roku boxes
Above discussion does not appear to be converging. I have created Comparison of Roku boxes with content deleted from this article. If this is not a satisfactory solution, let's continue the discussion at WP:AFD. ~Kvng (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Continue what discussion at AFD? Comparison of Roku boxes? It doesn't seemed to be listed.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe he wanted us to propose it for deletion. Potentially creates more work for everyone since this discussion will happen all over again if it does get nominated (most likely will). Inomyabcs (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that was a little premature. The proposal by Mdann was getting the bulk of the acceptance from the other editors. Inomyabcs (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

It should be deleted. It is a content fork. It was created by an editor that was canvassed to this discussion by EnTerr. And this all before the RFC is actually closed. I hope this is not an attempt at forumshopping.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am a member of WP:ELECTRONICS and noticed 's request for review of this. I have no relationship with EnTerr and actually don't immediately recognise any of the editors involved here. Fresh experienced eyes may be helpful here.
 * This can't be forum shopping because this is my first contribution to this discussion or this article. I am a regular WP:AFD contributor and I think this proposed deletion of material would be better worked out at AFD where discussions tend to be more focused and have the benefit neutral arbitrators. Comparison of Roku boxes is not listed yet but any editor can nominate it for deletion. Just be sure to provide a valid reason. I am certainly not encouraging anyone to delete this as I think it stands well on its own, covers a notable and useful topic and keeps Roku focused and avoids an WP:UNDUE weight on player hardware. Comparison of Roku boxes is not a content fork; I'm just relocating detailed material and there is ample of precedence for Comparison of... articles on Wikipedia.
 * With regards to creating more work, it looks like that's going to happen no matter how we try to resolve this. ~Kvng (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I welcome fresh eyes, but why didn't you add to the discussion above? We were doing well with talking through the matter and had minimized the edit war that had happened before the RfC. Now, I feel like you have brought a gun to a knife fight. Inomyabcs (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * My assessment of the existing discussion is different from yours. Is there anyone else who feels like consensus is within reach?
 * Creating a comparison article seemed like an obvious solution to me and I saw it mentioned by, not rejected but not on the table in recent discussion. I had the choice of proposing and describing it as part of the existing discussion or implementing the solution. I think with implementation, there's less chance for mire and misunderstanding. I take WP:BOLD seriously. ~Kvng (talk) 23:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's commendable but... "Boldness should not mean trying to impose edits against existing consensus or in violation of core policies, such as Neutral point of view and Verifiability. Fait accompli actions, where actions are justified by their having already been carried out, are inappropriate.", WP:CAUTIOUS. I draw you to "violation of core policies", which is what the RfC was discussing. Inomyabcs (talk) 23:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, what we have here is just the opposite case. Let me recap:
 * @Mdann52 engaged in edit warring with multiple editors to impose his changes (8/18, 8/19) instead of following this WP:CAUTIOUS you cite.
 * Then an unexperienced editor - User:Lexeus (2 page edits total) - used the wrong template while asking nicely to revert @Mdann52, which caused a "Semi-protected edit request" to be created. Obvious mistake, if you look at the diff (how is a semi-protection going to help against a registered user Mdann52?).
 * Editors discuss under that section and the consensus is apparent - everyone else (7 people) is against the deletions but @Mdann52 disregards that and re-deletes again on 8/28.
 * And then, 8/29 - we get you, - who right here does the most messed up thing in the whole story - instead of closing the wrong request and maybe help wrap-up the consensus of the existing discussion, you opened a completely new discussion, a RfC with a topic you formulated the way you (mis) understood it . Why?!
 * Three days later you warned me "do not edit contested content while there is an open discussion" but i don't understand why are you de-facto siding with Mdann52 by (a) making his 8/28 deletion a "fait accompli" with your RfC and (b) making editors re-do the discussion from the beginning.
 * "We were doing well", you say? I beg to differ. This is the biggest Mess-o-potamia i have seen on Wikipedia! (But then again, in fairness i don't go out much :) ) EnTerr (talk) 13:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Freshly canvassed eyes will certainly be helpful. Can we have some more freshly canvassed eyes from wikiproject electronics?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Allow me to share the view from my "freshly canvassed eyes" (I had no knowledge of Roku until discovering it in wikiproject electronics). First I evaluated the table in Comparison of Roku boxes, which I found to be informative, backed by a variety of sources, non-promotional, and apparently worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Next I looked at Roku's edit history, which revealed a spirited edit war focused on inclusion/exclusion of the table, and a determined effort by exclusionists to not allow the table in the article. Finally I read the above discussions, which confirmed what the edit history suggested: strong opinions and no consensus on this issue. Based on these observations, I think Kvng has taken a sensible approach in creating a separate article for the table: it meets both the exclusionists' goal of removing the table from Roku and the inclusionists' goal of preserving the table for readers. Lambtron (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * We seem to see things differently. I see by the RFC closing, by an uninvolved editor, that it was unnecessary to canvass other editors to the discussion. It was unnecessary to make an end run around the consensus making process. Imagine that, the result was to keep. Crazy how this time tested wikipedia process can work effectively.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Comparison Table Redux
We need to come to a decision on how to implement the result of the RfC. Either the table is included here&mdash;which Mdann seems to not want since they reverted that change&mdash;or we link to the extant comparison page&mdash;which Kvng seems to oppose since they reverted that change. Regardless, consensus shows that readers of this page need to be able to get to that table somehow and these series of reverts have left us at the same place as the beginning of the RfC. Wugapodes (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I to not oppose either approach. I did not revert, I removed the link to Comparison of Roku boxes that I originally added after Mdann52 added a second one. My preference would be to leave the table in a separate article because leaving it in this article (along with the prose describing different generations) puts WP:UNDUE emphasis on hardware comparison (to the detriment of coverage of software and service). ~Kvng (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * My apologies, I didn't realize that there were two links and misunderstood the revert. I'm fine with the article as is pending the AfD discussion. I agree with you, but that discussion is going on in the section above and at AfD so I'd rather not fragment it further. Wugapodes (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that the merge/split discussion has become fragmented. One way to defragment it would be to close the AfD (which seems to be resolved) and continue the discussion here. Lambtron (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't have an opinion about whether the table should be here or in a separate article, and I'm not interested in rubbing salt into wounds. That being said, the RfC asked whether the table should be restored in the article, and the consensus was "yes". Doesn't that mean the table should be restored to the article, regardless of whether particular editors are unhappy with that outcome? Lambtron (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Sure and then I probably would have created Comparison of Roku boxes at that point instead of earlier. I try not to see these things as winners vs. losers. Both sides have a point here and if we back away from policy a bit and work to listen to each other, we end up with the best possible result. ~Kvng (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that the goal is to arrive at the best possible result. I also agree, after considering your thoughts about WP:UNDUE and "winners vs. losers", that the best result would be to locate the table in a separate page; I would support a formal proposal to that effect. Lambtron (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely! We should WP:IAR without a common sense reason to do so that way we have no winners and losers. We can ignore WP:CONSENSUS and form a WP:CONLIMITED. False consensus is just simply a great idea.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

should denote dvr capabilities
i think the article should have a section specifying if it can or can not record these tv streams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.135.156.3 (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no reason for that. That would be like me suggesting that if should have a section saying whether it could fly or not. If it had and only if it had DVR functionality should it include a section on it or be included in a section. To the best of my knowledge it doesn't. DVR seems kind of redundant for a device like this anyway.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

C class article
This article is about a C class. We need more referencees basicaly to move it up to b class.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Clean up
I've tried to clean up the article abit after the split. I summarized the section Roku Streaming player. The second paragraph needs to be sourced.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Split Roku DVP
The Product and information related to it has expansionally grown.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I split the Roku DVP into it's own article Roku Streaming Player. The section on the Digital video player here needs to be summarised and condensed. I removed all about the channels to the Device page. That page will be able to more focus on the Digital Video player and this page will able to focus on more aspects of the comapny such as it's licesning like in the case of the Now TV Box.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I question the choice of "Roku" w/o qualifier to be the Roku Inc (the company that makes the players) and the players be split under a new, longer name. IMO, "Roku" should link to the players and company may get "Roku Inc" or "Roku (company)" page. Think about when average person types "Roku" in wiki, which one are they looking for? It is probably good to separate them since Roku Inc has history of making other players before that (SoundBridge etc); both should cross-link to each other in opening paragraphs. Continue discussion on Talk:Roku_Streaming_Player ? EnTerr (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

COI edit requests
Hello! Roku is a client of my paid editing service, Mister Wiki. They would like to just update a few things on their Wikipedia article. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you for taking the time. JacobMW (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * Update
 * Add
 * Add
 * Add
 * Add

✅ Regards,  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   22:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, your help is much appreciated. In your opinion, do you think the Advertising section is too promotional-sounding? Does it need to be rewritten or what was the reason for leaving it out? Appreciate your patience as I learn through this feedback. JacobMW (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The sentence proposed under "Advertising" states that Roku launched "its self-serving advertising product to allow advertisers to serve ads to Roku's users. " The first reference is paperwork submitted to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. The second reference is an article noting how Roku's 3rd quarter earnings beat expectations. So on the face of it, neither of the given sources confirm what is being stated in the proposed text. If the necessary information is provided elsewhere in the SEC filings, please provide the page number. Regards,  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   00:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , your feedback is very useful. How about this? I've replaced those references with a citation from AdAge. JacobMW (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * just wanted to follow up regarding the above proposed change to the Advertising section and if there was a reason why you didn't implement a couple of the requested edits to the Lead section (e.g Roku has a presence in the U.S., Canada, Mexico, UK, Republic of Ireland, France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Spain, Africa, Australia, Philippines, Argentina, Colombia, Chile, Panama, Guatemala, Peru, Honduras, Costa Rica, El Salvador and Nicaragua... and ...an American publicly traded company that powers a TV and advertising streaming platform and manufacturer of streaming players.) Thank you for your time, help and contribution. JacobMW (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * just wanted to follow up regarding the above proposed change to the Advertising section and if there was a reason why you didn't implement a couple of the requested edits to the Lead section (e.g Roku has a presence in the U.S., Canada, Mexico, UK, Republic of Ireland, France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Spain, Africa, Australia, Philippines, Argentina, Colombia, Chile, Panama, Guatemala, Peru, Honduras, Costa Rica, El Salvador and Nicaragua... and ...an American publicly traded company that powers a TV and advertising streaming platform and manufacturer of streaming players.) Thank you for your time, help and contribution. JacobMW (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * just wanted to follow up regarding the above proposed change to the Advertising section and if there was a reason why you didn't implement a couple of the requested edits to the Lead section (e.g Roku has a presence in the U.S., Canada, Mexico, UK, Republic of Ireland, France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Spain, Africa, Australia, Philippines, Argentina, Colombia, Chile, Panama, Guatemala, Peru, Honduras, Costa Rica, El Salvador and Nicaragua... and ...an American publicly traded company that powers a TV and advertising streaming platform and manufacturer of streaming players.) Thank you for your time, help and contribution. JacobMW (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Jan 4th - COI edit request
Hello! Just some COI edit requests for my client Roku, Inc.. Also, I realize that the mention of countries cites primary sources, but according to WP:PRIMARY, A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. I could be understanding the wrong, though, so please correct me if so. It is a known fact that Roku distributes to all those countries and can be verified. Thank you! JacobPace (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * Update to mention Roku's presence in different countries and expansion of business model.
 * Add new section

✅  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   22:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) In the lead, it is not well understood what is meant by "presence". Please clarify.
 * 2) The information under 'Advertising' was added to another section.
 * Thanks, . "Presence" meaning countries they distribute their projects to. What about:  Also, are we only allowed to mention countries that are referenced in independent sources? In that case, I believe only a few of these countries have been mentioned in independent sources but there are press releases for all these countries (the company wouldn't lie about where they distribute their products to is my point). JacobPace (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding the 'Advertising' section, . Is the update to the lead section okay to add in with the edit I made? Here it is again for your convenience:
 * JacobPace (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Jan 11 COI edit request
Following up on change 1/2. Thank for incorporating the second change.


 * Lead
 * Update to mention Roku's presence in different countries and expansion of business model.

This has been addressed. The lead is not the appropriate place for this information.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   17:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . How is this not an appropriate place for the information? The update is meant to update the main product description of Roku and mention key countries it distributes its products to. I just want to get this done and move on, I feel like I'm losing my mind lol :-/ JacobPace (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)