Talk:Roomba

Third Generation & Home Bases
The article repeatedly states that all third generation Roombas are compatible with the homebase. This is untrue. The lowest end of the third generation Roombas (the 510 model) is not compatible with the homebase. This is confirmable both by looking at Irobot's webpage where they list the Home Base accessory as compatible with the 530, 560, and 570 but not the 510 and also by looking at an actual 510 model and noticing that it doesn't have any metal plates on the bottom to use with the homebase charger, so even if it did dock with the base, it wouldn't be able to make use of it. Correcting this involves a larger amount of work than I'm comfortable, as a Wikipedia novice, doing. So I wanted to put this on the talk page. Also, I believe this information merits inclusion in Wikipedia as a person looking to do research before buying a Roomba might mistakenly think that the 510 is simply the 530 packaged with fewer virtual walls, when this is not, in fact, the case. It might also be the case that there are some 2nd generation models that cannot use the Home Base, but I'm not in a position to verify this.

--58.110.167.163 (talk) 08:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)https://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=DChcSEwi4nKH7ufXZAhWXlL0KHcohAAQYABAHGgJ0aA&ohost=www.google.com&cid=CAASEuRoq4y4Eo1FSCuD7zGooJHqkw&sig=AOD64_3tnhl0hCPZeVGhY04G8r9rdqdIeA&adurl=&q=&nb=0&res_url=https%3A%2F%2Fnortonsafe.search.ask.com%2Fweb%3Fq%3Droomba%2Blowest%2Bprice%26chn%3D1005220%26doi%3D2018-03-11%26geo%3DUS%26guid%3D268B856F-B9B7-41AE-93E2-2D49F3BBA3B4%26locale%3Den_US%26o%3DAPN11910%26p2%3D%255EET%255Ech20au%255Edefzzz%26prt%3DNSBU%26ver%3D22.10.1.10%26tpr%3D4%26ts%3D1521361694875%26ssrt%3D270&rurl=https%3A%2F%2Fnortonsafe.search.ask.com%2Fweb%3Fq%3Droomba%26o%3DAPN11910%26chn%3D1005220%26guid%3D268B856F-B9B7-41AE-93E2-2D49F3BBA3B4%26doi%3D2018-03-11%26ver%3D22.10.1.10%26prt%3DNSBU%26geo%3DUS%26locale%3Den_US%26trackId%3Dnag%26ctype%3D%26tpr%3D121&nm=2&nx=214&ny=9&is=822x777&clkt=337&bg=!MDOlMytEoS86BXlGmYYCAAABA1IAAABWmQE7pzYtHXzR28O_lCJGRmJmCDbe_cE5ntSTmBVP_TwyVpIp8kStqqmvovvDmNJdGxPkhvSOIHYt2Z6hrwU53ci_sRWcne512VMV1ASSRoRBPU7gBekgMpodir3pPSWF6pct-7PvRxMtj9EpTQXFMgQM6-LAMcfMCkWiLRaKFhMB2E4ASZ8U8FvOqjtcTcVBKMirtx2ysTMCgiPq13hTYwBW60SY9o4p3jxJOeH8avpmcHTkNyzc8DpM1n0yaQAWFFYINIsFJWEhSc_G1PGIFZEmUkwbh49F0OmUnHsGxtY9FudY5ZgOK6RGUcSn9lIkEEvIHwZB8CFPis1EQAq706CThrLOp6YLssvxOgnzXTrNK9pPn1AFsYPIxh41RLfLnpyhygf7kVo8hoME3hehUFaD9Oso2Xkp0AEp5WHJ


 * [DATE VERIFYED] :18/3/2018: Not logged in

Request for concensus before making changes to the external links page
Please ask for concensus before making changes to the external links section. An anonymous user came in with a mass delete off all external links (except for iRobot itself), which completely unded the concensus we reached on the Roomba Review forum, so it clearly wasn't a well thought out removal. More bordering on vandalism in the name of cleaning things up. That change was reverted. I absolutely agree that the external links could use some cleaning up. Let's build some concensus first? I'd like to see everything removed except for iRobot, Roomba Review Forums, and perhaps Roomba-Cam. --Jmccorm 16:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed a spam link that was added by 203.206.110.22. Bad descrption, apparent SPAM site, even an invalid URL. It seems to have met the criteria for vandalism. Odd. --Jmccorm 15:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Cbenson1 added some spamish links on 9 July 2008. User Thumperward deleted these as well as all the other external links, excepting the iRobot page itself. I re-added the external links as they were before the additions by Cbenson1. 10 July 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.224.46 (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Need clarification between models
You've got to admit, iRobot has done a terrible and confusing job of differenting their model numbers. NUMEROUS EXAMPLES: A 401 became the 4000. The 4100 become the 4300. Usually, higher model numbers are more advanced units, but the 4300 is clearly inferior to a 4260. A 4110 is the same Roomba as the 4105, but includes more accessories. All the models are capable of scheduling, but only the scheduling models are bundled with the remote to do it. The lowly Roomba Red has the same cleaning ability as the Scheduler with Intelli-Bin. Okay, I'm ending the examples there. But the point is, if someone could add to this article in a way that would differentiate between the models and educate people on the actual differences, it would be highly useful. --Jmccorm 15:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thumperward removed all of the model lists on 27 Oct 2008. Pre-deletion page here. His explanation was, simply "sod it. these lists are only sourced to catalogue opages, so remove them." Not sure that I agree with that logic and feel that the information was valuable. I'd really like to re-add. Any opinions? --Sstrader (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * PLEASE return the model differentiations. I can see what Thumperward was referring to when he made the deletion, but messiness is not a good reason to delete content which is probably necessary.  Ideally we can do something like what's being done at ipod and list of ipod models but I don't think it's constructive to just remove everything.  We have to start somewhere, and the list was a good start.  It also appears that there's problems with the clarity of the models, production date, and a lot of other things that even the manufacturer doesn't clarify; perhaps we can provide some clarity.  Please restore it.--Cpt ricard (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Removal of See also: MOP
I do not know if MOP is an acronym for some related technological device. There is no such related device listed in the disambiguation page at MOP.

If it is the noun "mop", the relation is too tenuous to justify a "See also" link.

T2X 21:52, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Addition of External Link: Roomba User Community
The Roomba User Community - http://Roombareview.com/chat is a valid external link as per the "External Link Guidelines" of Wikipedia. Much of the information contained in the wikipedia entry was taken without reference from the forum, including the information about the Roomba 2.1 and the OSMO, both of which were first discovered by the roomba community members, and have been discussed almost nowhere else but at this form. The new OSMO //Hacker is not the same as the older OSMO that is referenced in the Wikipedia entry.

Additionally, the site complies with all other external link guidelines, and it contains "other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks or reviews"

Please do not remove this link, unless you can provide proof that the information referenced in the Wikipedia article was not taken from this source.
 * I disagree. If there is material in the article that cannot be verified via a reliable source, it should be removed as well. Please do not add the link again. OhNo itsJamie Talk 06:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I used the helpme feature and got ahold of an editor, User:Xiner to discuss this issue. Xiner says that WP:EL is the official policy. WP:NOT says you may have ONE fan-site link in the external links section. I discussed with Xiner that an incredibly weak forum is already listed (Robot Vacuum Forums -- 27 messages since 2005). I presented the alternate choices of the Roomba Review Forum (largest user forum - 19k messages from 2004, approx 12/day in recent history), or the official iRobot User Group on Yahoo! Groups, which is smaller (13k messages from 2002, approx 2/day in recent history). Xiner recommended going for the largest fan site, so that would be the Roomba Review Forum. Unless there is further objection, I believe we should go forward by replacing the Robot Vacuum Forms with the Roomba Review Forum, with a specific link to the Roomba message board []. --Jmccorm 17:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have made the changes as discussed. --Jmccorm 03:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Figuring out the production date of Roomba
I think a common question people have about Roomba is when they were produced and if they have the 2.1 improvements. According to information I found at Roomba Review's forums, the serial number, located on the box or the battery (unless the battery has been replaced), should indicate a production date later than June 6, 2005 in order for the Roomba to have the 2.1 improvements. You can figure out how to interpret the production date from the serial number at iRobot's hacker section. -Unsigned


 * I came here to find out just that, thank you 71.236.147.130 04:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Charging Problem seems a bit obscure to be included.
all you would have to do is check the iRobot site support pages to find the solution to this problem. unless i am mistaken this "charging problem" isn't some fundamental or universal flaw in the product... Ordinary 03:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That link doesn;t work any more.

There have only been two generations of Roomba
The first generation being the original Roomba, Roomba Pro Elite, etc. The second generation being the Discovery series (Red, Sage, Discovery, Discovery SE, Scheduler) currently being sold. Roomba "2.1" is a Discovery series robot.
 * I am taking this questions to Roomba Review for a concensus. I'm also checking to see if there is an official iRobot position on this. --Jmccorm 05:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A fair idea, though I would also point out that there were two separate releases of the OSMO dongle, and which one a user was supposed to buy based on the serial number. I would presume that implies, at the very least, two different firmware versions, plus the current lineup that doesn't need the OSMO at all. So, three generations, at least. Haikupoet 20:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Update: Wikipedia wants information that can be referenced. I can find no official source for the number of generations of Roomba there have been. I have emailed iRobot several times (including Investor Relations) for at least their position on the issue, and if it is documented anywhere that I can reference. As seems to be the problem with iRobot lately, I have not received any reply. Updating an article on Roomba is difficult because the only real authoritative source about Roomba is iRobot itself. But all the good information is in the message boards, which is not a reliable source (per Wikipedia policy). --Jmccorm 04:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a third generation: take a look at Roomba's website! --gjsmo 13:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm really confused about the Roomba generations issue. Every review of the Discovery (Engadget, etc) claims that it is the "new third generation" (circa 2004), while every review of the 5xx series claims "it is the fifth generation."  I guess there was no fourth?  Not that I have any information about this topic, I'd just love some clarification on the issue!  It would also be nice if there was some more detail about the changes to the units over time...  --SFoskett 15:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Update: I guess this has been definitively answered:  There have been three generations, the page is right, and everyone calling the Discovery the third generation (including some references in this article) were wrong.  --SFoskett 16:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Should there be a section on known issues with Roomba's
An example of this would be the "Circle Dance" than roomba's do from time to time. You could also include the battery charger problem in this section. Mark1800 00:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem I see here is finding an authoritative source regarding known issues. Sure, you can find forum postings, and perhaps a person or two with their own web page, but there really isn't a lot to reference out there (that would meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion, as I understand them). If someone knows better, or perhaps a rule that would lower the threshold of referencing, I know I certainly would like to list some of the known issues with the Roomba. --Jmccorm 04:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Circle dance isn't a problem, it's a feature: when a Roomba detects a lart amount of dirt, it does the circle dance (also performed when you push "spot") because it cleans an area more --gjsmo 13:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does circles in "spot" or when "dirt detect" goes on, but the term has another meaning. When a bumper sensor is stuck in the "bumped" position, the unit spins while backing away from the imagined obstacle. It continues to back and spin for about a minute then stops with a 9-beep error. While this failure (usually the LED or phototransistor in the bumper sensor) seems to have affected quite a few units (500 series?) over time, it doesn't seem to be encyclopedic information. 107.0.6.162 (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a bit dated, but the circle dance phenomena is due to dirty or defective (usually dirty) sensors in the wheels, which tell the unit that one wheel isn't spinning. That sends the robot into the circle dance to attempt to free what the unit considers a stuck wheel.Wzrd1 (talk) 10:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Accuracy
I've been asked to clarify the reason for the accuracy tag. Actually, I guess it should have been a self-contradictory tag. The article says both that 2.1s were sold only by HSN, and that all Roombas currently being sold are 2.1s. That doesn't make sense. -- Beland 15:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Deleted this contradictory and somewhat trivial paragraph. The original code follows. Atchius 01:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)



Robotic Floorvac redirect?
Currently Robotic Floorvac redirects to Roomba. As there are several different type of robotic floorvacs, shouldn't this be its own article, or at least a redirect to a more generic section on Vacuum Cleaner? It doesn't seem correct to catagorize all robotic floorvacs as Roombas, especially as several different brands are also listed on Wikipedia (see Domestic robot). Thehedgehog 07:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the roomba is the only device marketed and sold as a robotic floorvac. It might not be a trademark (I'm presuming it's not), but it doesn't seem to be a generic term for a robotic vacuum cleaner (not that most of these are really vacuum cleaners evidently but anyway) so I think the redirect is correct. However I have provided a disambig at the top just in case Nil Einne 09:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A point of information only. The records available online, as of this date, do not show Robotic Floorvac as a trademark that has been applied for by the iRobot Corporation. But I am not recommending or calling for any different course of action. --Jmccorm 03:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think the disambig works okay. Just wanted to make sure "Robotic Floorvac" didn't become some type of reverse Genericized trademark (such as assuming all DVRs are TiVo). Thehedgehog 08:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Features
Can one include the main features of every roomba classes ? This would help to understand the common features and differences.--Altermike 10:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Unclycopedic
This is very easy to put. Reason ?. Why don´t propose the modifications ?. If you delete any text, put it in http://robots.wikia.com/wiki/Roomba --Altermike 09:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "The modifications" are "proposed" in the template itself. This is basic copy-editing work. Chris Cunningham 10:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Mention the inventors?
Why does the article not mention the inventors: Rodney A. Brooks, Helen Greiner, Joseph L. Jones, and Paul Sandin?

(Joe Jones: http://www.qrobotics.com/jones.html and http://www.athomaz.com/?m=200612   Paul Sandin: http://www.qrobotics.com/sandin.html Rodney Brooks: http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:JD68GMZh7LEJ:money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2005/09/19/8272912/index.htm+roomba+inventors&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us  Helen Greiner: http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventors/greiner.htm ) ShumDavar 21:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed two "coined" words: "roombable" and "roombatics"
There were two phrases about words that were coined in conjunction with Roomba:


 * "roombable", meaning "roomba-friendly, yielded 61 Google hits, many of which were WP-related
 * "roombatics", meaning "hacking Roombas", was found 74 times - all uses seemed to relate to either WP or a single blogger trying to popularize the word.

Apparently, someone's trying to use WP to popularize his neologisms. IMHO that's not what WP is for, so I removed the phrases.

--Baumi 03:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed External Links
From what I can see, RobotShop is the only company listed on the official iRobot website as being a distributor for the Roomba in "Americas" and was the first company to provide servicing and repairs. In the history of the Roomba, this would be notworthy information.--Cbenson1 (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Capturing the public's imagination
There ought to be a section about how the Roomba is the first robo-vacuum to take off. See the Woomba parody, the knock-offs, the Roomba hackers, etc. --66.51.187.221 (talk) 02:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Can Roomba Clean everything ?
Can it mop away the sticky stuff, superglue ? Wipe away hard or bigger object ? Will the master step on roomba while returning home when the room is dark ? Will the master step on roomba when he is in a rush, forgetting to take document ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xacrifice (talk • contribs) 01:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

IRobot Scooba addition, and accuracy of the term "vacuum"? No criticisms?
Good page, some comments:

1. I recently saw an iRobot ScoobaItalic text for sale on Craigslist. It apparently does for hardwood floors what the Roomba did for carpets. I didn't see any mention of it here. See: http://brunswick.craigslist.org/ele/1660319207.html

2. The Roomba is described as a robotic vacuum cleaner. Does it really use a vacuum? Or is it more like a carpet sweeper, using rotating brushes to pick up debris and deposit it in tray? I assumed the latter. A true vacuum cleaner would have a blower motor, filter, and suction. Does the Roomba have this? If not, maybe the primary entry should be amended to say "robotic carpet sweeper" instead of "vacuum cleaner".

3. I've seen a lot of these for sale, and a lot of times, being sold at closeout. I have had friends buy them and when I ask a year later how it is working, they say, noncommittally, "We haven't used it lately". I see a lot sold at garage sales or on eBay as well. I am curious as to how well these things really work. I would think if they worked as advertised, they would replace vacuum cleaners within a year or two of being on the market. Are they too awkward to use? Not effective enough in vacuuming (or carpet sweeping)? Do they not work well in real-world applications (various rug heights, furniture arrangements, etc.)? Or are people just too set in their ways?

Great page. I think it is an interesting invention and am curious as to why it hasn't sold very well. I would buy one, but the lack of success of the device in the mainstream market gives me pause.

This device, and robotic lawnmowers, sound like they would be huge hits in the marketplace, but neither seems to have caught on very well - just yet, anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Patent (talk • contribs) 16:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It isn't a vacuum, it's a broom. They are quite robust and the most common problem is a dead battery, which is easy to fix unless the user doesn't realize that that's the problem. --71.77.0.151 (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * All Roombas except the Dirt Dog have a vacuum and if you don't have pets, they clean quite well. I don't know why people don't use them more, but here's a couple possibilities: they are high maintenance -- the bin needs to be emptied after just about every use, and the brushes and sensors need to be periodically cleaned. You may have to prepare a room before vacuuming -- I have some pipe frame chairs that Roomba gets caught on unless I pick them off the floor first. They can also get caught up in wires and curtain pulls. You might have to move the virtual walls around to set up to do a particular room. All this means, it's not necessarily just press a button. Also search 'roomba dog poo' and see what trouble an unattended Roomba and incontinent dog got into together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.146.70 (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Not really a vacuum
The Roomba is not really a vacuum and it doesn't have suction. It is a sweeper that sweeps up the dirt and dust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.94.222 (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Not true. See the article's description of the "Dirt Dog" cleaner, which is a sweeper only.  All "Roomba"s have a vacuum cleaning function, as clearly described in the article. -- Reify-tech (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Video
The video on the page doesn't seem to be of the best quality. Could someone maybe upload a better one? Usb10 Let's talk 'bout it! 20:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Virtual Wall/Lighthouse
The description of Virtual Wall/Lighthouse (VW/L) operation on the iRobot website is simplified, and doesn't give a clear picture of how they work, their capabilities, and limitations. Further complicating understanding, iRobot appears to have produced at least 5 variants of the VW/L since the original introduction. The use of infrared (IR) signals with or without radio frequency (RF) signals isn't very clearly explained, either. The best explanation I've found so far is here: http://www.robotreviews.com/chat/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=11048. Has anybody found a better description? If not, should there be a pointer to this explanation from the Roomba article? -- Reify-tech (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Intro needs a citation

 * Part of the success of the Roomba is that it can be easily adapted to perform other robotic tasks when extended with an embedded computer connected to the Roomba Open Interface.

This statement uses weasely weak language, and needs a citation. At first blush it seems non-notable and/or untrue.--70.187.190.211 (talk) 03:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

video
http://www.nytimes.com/video/technology/personaltech/100000002663490/roomba-880-a-clean-sweep.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20140123 is a video from  the NYT showing a Roomba 880 in action.211.225.34.139 (talk) 02:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

DJ Roomba
Why a Roomba in Parks and Recreation is a trivia but in Breaking Bad is not?

Besides that, I thing the Hufftington post is an appropriate source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doomsday290 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, you didn't cite any source. Breaking Bad should probably be removed too.  See also WP:OTHERSTUFF.  —EncMstr (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I was in the process of putting the citation but accidentally hit enter and it got published. So, should I put back the DJ Roomba bit or erase the Breaking Bad one? — doomsday290 (talk) 8:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Roomba model comparison tables
The Roomba model comparison tables are incomplete. This may be confusing to readers. It appears that the tables have not been edited for some time, so I propose their deletion. I also propose that the size of the tables should be decreased, as they contain lots of unnecessary information (such as whether or not spare brushes are included in the box.)

A Nebraska Cornhusker (talk) 21:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Roomba 900 Series
I would like to suggest an edit to the section on Roomba models. The 900 series is one of the most significant improvements to the Roomba, as it introduces a new method of navigation and cloud integration. Thus, it definitely should be mentioned on this page.

A Nebraska Cornhusker (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Roomba. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110915171122/http://www.businessweek.com:80/technology/content/aug2007/tc20070821_419619.htm?technology+product+review to http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/aug2007/tc20070821_419619.htm?technology+product+review
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.roombadevtools.com/ProductCart/pc/viewCat_P.asp?idCategory=8

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

"15 million units sold"
The citation to this claim in the start of the article does not actually support the claim. It proves that iRobot has sold 15 million robots, but iRobot produces far more than just the Roomba (including industrial and military applications). It is not clear how many of these are the Roomba. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.38.180.209 (talk) 09:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Removed. Thanks for pointing that out. Dlthewave (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Roomba. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120103091646/http://www.irobot.com/sp.cfm?pageid=203 to http://www.irobot.com/sp.cfm?pageid=203
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.irobot.com/EngineeringAwesome/images/iAdapt+Fast+Facts.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202230831/http://www.irobot.com/images/consumer/hacker/Roomba_SCI_Spec_Manual.pdf to http://www.irobot.com/images/consumer/hacker/Roomba_SCI_Spec_Manual.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202230831/http://www.irobot.com/images/consumer/hacker/Roomba_SCI_Spec_Manual.pdf to http://www.irobot.com/images/consumer/hacker/Roomba_SCI_Spec_Manual.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Domestic vacuum robot
It would be interesting an article about domestic vacuum robots, including Roomba and Xiaomi.--BoldLuis (talk) 13:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Robotic vacuum cleaner —Darxus (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

1969?
The first paragraph says the Roomba was introduced in September 1969, but I don't see that on the cited page ([]). Is this right? 187.99.245.246 (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


 * That date is no longer in the article. —Darxus (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

What about the i6 and m series?
Those two (see official screenshot) are completely missing from the list of models in the article. -Cardace (talk) 06:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Робот пылесос Roomba 780.jpg