Talk:RONJA

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shouldn't it say more about what it actually does? In layman terms? Can me and the neighbour plug it in the back of our network cards to trade files and play Doom? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.17.141.53 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


It would be a good idea for a native English speaker to clean this up. The grammar is very poor in places. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.252.174.198 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I have placed the {{notability}} tag on this article because it is not apparent to me that this is a notable product. However I'm not convinced either that it's a good candidate for deletion. As the tag indicates, please establish notability if possible, citing reliable sources. If this cannot be established, it should be nominated for deletion. --AbsolutDan (talk) 05:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this should be deleted. If nothing else, it's an interesting application of LEDs: I believe its mention does belong in the LED article, and there's plenty of information about it in this article. anescient 06:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Be that as it may, it still currently fails WP:V - no cited content from reliable sources. --AbsolutDan (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
What kind of citations and reliable sources do you expect about this piece of incredible but amateur made piece of home-brew technology? It's mostly used around the globe but mostly be geeks and amateurs which could hardly be considered "reliable". :-( Maybe you should consider the number of users which is pretty high if you consider you have to build the device... -- Radek Podgorny —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rpodgorny (talk • contribs) 22:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
Have a look through WP:V, Wikipedia's verifiability policy. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." If an article fails WP:V and cannot be brought in line with it, then it must go, no matter how wonderful the subject of the article may be. --AbsolutDan (talk) 01:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I've read the policy and still see no violation of the rules :-(. Ronja is a piece of hardware, no question about truth or bias then. Verifiability could be in question here but as someone has noticed before, there are lots of installations around the world with photographic evidence. Google itself finds about 300 pictures for "ronja optical" and about 13000 links for the same phrase. Unfortunataly, most of them are not in English but it's still evidence. If you want citations there's only two types you can get: "It's a great piece of technology" which is biased and therefore not acceptable, or "Ronja is an optical link device" which in fact is not a citation, it's a fact. Actually, I see no citations in "pentium" article neither... Requesting citations in hardware-related articles doesn't make much sense to me. Rpodgorny 11:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The article fails WP:V because it currently does not cite reliable sources. Again quoting from WP:V: "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources". Bias doesn't necessarily have to be excluded -- for example, if a major magazine published a review of the product (or perhaps a "how to"), that might count as a reliable source. For an article to remain at Wikipedia, it must have proper sources. If such sources are not available, then again it cannot be included at Wikipedia. --AbsolutDan (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
So now I finally understand it. Does the "reliable source" have to be in English? Rpodgorny 15:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, there's no requirement that sources must be in English, as long as they're proper citations and not just bare links. --AbsolutDan (talk) 23:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Some suggestions:

--mj41 09:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/o/n/Talk%7ERONJA_7dd7.html"