User talk:Roku~enwiki/Archive 2

Name
On the website other than the Roku ready streaming sticks these all all categorized as streaming players. So I choose the name. I'm not sure if any other redirects should be made such as one for Roku Digital Video player, Roku DVP, Roku player, or what ever else. If you can help in this regard please do. For more information on redirects see WP:REDIRECT.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Added Roku Digital Video Player, Roku DVP, Roku Player, and Roku Netflix player.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't it be the other way around though - "Roku" page talking about the streaming players, and "Roku Inc" page talking about the company and legacy products? Because when people talk about "Roku", prevailingly they mean the video players and not the company with the same name. When they come to wiki and type "Roku" they likely look for player info, not company info. Also, company name is technically "Roku Inc" and not "Roku". The player was before referred as "Netflix DVP", "Roku DVP" etc but they have settle on one-word "Roku" years ago. EnTerr (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I would have to disagree. I know of people that genericize the product by the comapny name but the comapny never has and most if not all publications do not. The player was referred to before as the netflix player actually. Roku has primarily reffered to the device manufacturer in the media. If you would like to rename the two articles it will have to be done based on consensus and not slowly editing in Roku, Inc into both articles.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Check how Roku Inc refers to the player: http://www.roku.com/meet-roku <- The name they have decided is just "ROKU", with no qualifier unless disambiguation is needed. This is not a case of trademark dillution, which you using the word "genericize" implies. "Genericide" happens when proprietary name starts getting used to describe non-brand items (e.g. "google" for non-google internet search, "xerox" for non-xerox copiers etc). Instead this is conscious choice by the company marketing to call their devices just "Roku" (with eventual suffix of XS, Lt, 2, 3 etc), leading to tongue-twisters like "Roku from Roku" or "Roku by Roku". But if we completely buy into this Iron man's "The suit and I are one.", we should revert the split and keep ONE article, no? I'd check (TM) database for description but i see they claim only (R) on the name. On the other hand "Roku Inc" is the correct designation of legal entity (incorporated). Don't you freak out, i am not "slowly editing in" Roku Inc. - just tried dis-ambiguating one or two occasions. I wouldn't have the patience or knowledge to untangle all the links if swapping the pages - but think now is a good time to weigh on the choice. Somewhat random list of examples of use of "Roku" as player name: http://reviews.cnet.com/roku-3/ http://blog.roku.com/blog/2013/12/17/introducing-youtube-on-roku-3/ http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2425735,00.asp http://techcrunch.com/2013/12/20/gift-guide-something-for-a-twenty-something/ http://www.wired.com/reviews/2013/04/roku-3/   EnTerr (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Check how here the Roku company refers to the devices as the Roku Player: http://www.roku.com/meet-roku <---They use the device with a qualifier multiple times. genericize implies a multiple number of things. One of which is trademark dilution. I'm actually going to get intoa  game of shotgun argumentation. You know as well as I do I can provide a great number of links to the company as Roku. You can propose a merger. I would personally be against it. What I propose is setting up a  disambiguation link and renaming this page Roku Player.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that is a good idea, this page to be named "Roku player" instead of "Roku Streaming Player" (since there is no non-streaming Roku player - there was SoundBridge but that was never being called Roku). Regarding turning "Roku" into disambiguation page, maybe not - since the 2 most popular Rokus are the player and the company that makes it. Maybe a 3rd and 4th person can chime in with opinion? EnTerr (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well there is also the city and the Avatar character. Sounds good.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well there is also the city and the Avatar character. Sounds good.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I asked for a third opinion at WP:THIRD. It says: Roku is a common term for this device and the company that creates it. In addition there are 2 other minor disambiguous topics that use the term. Should a disambiguous page be created under the term Roku with links to all the related articles?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer to move the company's page to Roku, Inc. or Roku (company), as I have no real doubt that the primary topic for the word "Roku" is for the player itself, not the company. A primary topic is what people using Wikipedia are most likely to search for, and I doubt the average person is looking for info on the company first. Also, a DAB page needs to be created at Roku (disambiguation). I can do that later today if else does. - BilCat (talk) 09:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have full doubt that we can attribute Roku to primarily the player. The company primarily called Roku Vs a Device commonly called Roku and also commonly called by other names. And It's not even a Device. It's a number of devices. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * As long as WP cover the players/devices in one article, that will most likely be what readers are searching for, which is what a primary topic is. Even if the player article were to be split into separate articles on each type, it would still b e useful to have an overview page about the players as a whole, and that would still probably be best at Roku. - BilCat (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the player article split. The individual players really aren't distictive enough to break them up into seperate articles. In the future when the Roku TV's start to come out it may. For that matter the Software platform may become distinctive for a split. As for the Device as primary for the term Roku I completely disagree. However we can put hatnotes at the top of this page and that would cover my concerns. However I think this page should be renamed Roku Player and Roku should only be a redirect here. Roku (Comapy) is acceptable for the other article.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

On second though Roku Inc might be more advisable.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * If Roku redirects to Roku Player, then that is an admission that Roku is the primary topic for the players. Then wp:commonname come into effect, as to what the device's most common name, and that is likely to be just Roku. - BilCat (talk) 19:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * With most sources the Roku Player is the most common name. And that's not an admission at all. That's a compromise. Instead of pursuing this any further I'm going to allow the consensus of two to stand and go back to editing.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Roku Streaming Player → Roku – "Roku" is the clear primary topic for the player, and the most logical title per WP:COMMONNAME, as the article covers several different models, and various sources use "Roku", "Roku Player", "Roku Streaming Player", etc. BilCat (talk) 13:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article subtopics
In the Sub topics First gen thru third gen it looks like we have alot of information that is later used in the feature comparison. I'd like to scrap the feature details from those sections and move related sources to the feature comaparison. Instead feel those sections with historical information and anything not of a tech nature.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Least common name
Why are we using a less common name for these devices and editing in less common names for these devices?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 12:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Because it's not the least common name, and it's the title of the article. You had your chance to oppose the move, but you didn't. It's probably a good idea to drop the stick, at least for now. - BilCat (talk) 12:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't move it because I thought you were going to move it. I'd drop the stick but the horse ain't dead. Your going to call this the common name then go ahead and justify that with reliable sources.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * We're not going to find a reliable source that outright says "the common name for the player is xxx". There are plenty of sources that just use "Roku" for the player, as have already been presented, including on the official Roku page. There are many names that can be used for the player, and I don't see any one variation being more common than just plain "Roku", and all the variations include Roku in the title. As such, I really don't see why you're objecting to that as the title. Since the article is now at the title Roku, that name has to appear in the title line, and on the DAB page. If you disagree with the move to that title, you can appeal the move, or propose a move to another title. - BilCat (talk) 13:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The same Roku page presents it both as the Roku Player and the Roku Streaming player.I don't see "Roku" being all to common at all. Well I do as being quite common for the actually but that's another topic.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Split off channel lists
The channels section is getting congested, with one section having five columns, and it's a bit difficult to read on smaller screens. It's also very likely to continue to grow even larger as Roku adds more channels. As such, I would like to split the channel lists off to List of Roku channels, or something similar. Any thoughts? - BilCat (talk) 09:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You have no call to split them. This won't be a size split and they aren't notable enough to stand on there own. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no actual need to List all of the channels. There's no problem with a comprehensive list but we could could just cut the list down in size. Highlight prominent offerings. We are after all advertising a pertial list.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This page lists about 250 channels, which already feels like too much - perish the thought but someone may try to add all 1500 channels? I have no idea how those 250 came to be listed, i presume it was done by individual channel creators, to "feature" them here. Maybe these lists should just be removed altogether - whoever wants to see them, they are on Roku Inc's website, including sort by popularity. Otherwise we can say, let's list Top 100 but who will update the list as the order changes? EnTerr (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Roku fans have added some of them. It's possible some of the creators have put them on here. I wouldn't recommend using the top 100 list. Really don't want it to seem that we are rating channels. I would remove them based on notability. I'd remove Roku exclusive channels, Clip channels like syfy, things with no stand alone subscription, and games that have no article of their own.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move
Roku → Roku Player – "Roku" as said above is not the clear primary name. Both Roku Player and Roku Streaming Player have a longer standing usuage per the sources. Per the sources Roku ofter refers to the company. The primary argument for the change was based off interpretation of a primary source which amounts to original research.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose - "Roku" is the clear common name for the device. While "Roku" can refer to the company, depending on the context, in most reliable sources it refers to the player. Yes, sources use all three variations - "Roku", "Roku Player", and "Roku Streaming Player" - and it may be difficult to prove which is used more in some sources. However, it make no sense to redirect Roku to another page, as the OP suggests, as he apparently is not recommending that Roku be a DAB page! Per WP:NC, this title is concise, " The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subject." - BilCat (talk) 16:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It would seem that something so clear would actually be clear. It is in fact in no way clear. While it may difficult to ascertain which has the most use, Roku doesn't have the longest standing use. Roku, Inc has been connected to the Roku term far longer and consitently. It can't be argued that the company is less prominent than its devices. The company is the primary for this term. Any actually consideration beyond that should be to move Roku as a redirect for the disambiguous page. Unless the opposition would like to provide evidence and make their case.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose - this conflation between company and player name was one created by the company Roku Inc. They have been all over the map about naming it, just like with model naming (multiple versions of Roku HD, Roku LT, Roku 2 - see table). At first box was "Netflix Streaming Player", then it became "Roku Digital Video Player", "Roku DVP", then i am sure some marketing maestro get ahold of it and said too long, let's chop it down - player is getting famous, we are getting famous, it's all good. The current state of the name is that of "I am Iron Man. The suit and I are one." One can argue company and player should stay together - but i feel is better if "Roku" is the player page and company gets "Roku Inc" (which is the legal name anyway), where other past products can be listed (like Soundbridge, Brightsign spin-off). EnTerr (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The man and suit are one. That's not really the arguemnet however. Roku has consistently been used to refer to the comapny. And that is far prior to these devices. Roku has never commonly been used by the sources to refer to this device. One could argue that the player and the device should stay together but it wouldn't be a very good arguemnt. Both are notable and both are distinct. Besides that the argument in itself is childish. You might as well say give me my way or merge them back. But the major thing here that seems to really pass you is that this is about the name of the article and not the redirect. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 12:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Primary name
There is little to no evidence that Roku is the primary name for these devices. All evidence seems to conflict with the evidence that Roku is the primary for the company that makes this device. You are welcomed to make a case for this articles continued use of Roku especially as the common term for these devices.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)