Talk:Buffalo network-attached storage series

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LinkStation for previous discussion regarding this page. Reswobslc 21:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is currently a discussion for Deletion review. Reswobslc 23:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • A relevant excerpt from deletion review: In other words, it would be perfectly ok to rewrite the article and provide sources. Keep in mind that it may find itself on AFD again and also keep in mind that if it isn't substantially different, it will probably be speedy deleted. If you would like for the page to be restored to your userspace so that you can work on it, ask an administrator - many of them are willing to accomodate such requests. It may be better, though, to start from scratch so that it doesn't just get deleted without any serious consideration. Deletion is a statement that this article is, in the community's opinion, irreconcilably bad. (I don't agree with that opinion, but that was undeniably the consensus.) It is not a ban against creating another article on the topic if the concern is alleviated. In this case, the concern was that it read like an advertisement. Also, you may want to check out Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations), specifically the "Criteria for products and services" section. It gives standards for notability. Ensuring that the article provides evidence that this technology is notable under this standard would likely keep it from gettting deleted again. BigDT 22:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC) Reswobslc 01:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merger[edit]

This article, already deleted and under review, seems like it would be best if merged into it's company's page and a redirect placed here. -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 01:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can you cite any reason for this? I can cite a reason why not: the product is notable all on its very own. The LinkStation has a whole hacking and development community, not Melco and its numerous other products. There is no more rationale for merging this into Melco than there is for merging Space Mountain into Disneyland - the merit is clear and plentiful in both cases. It is understandable how someone who has never seen or touched a Linkstation can call it non-notable to them - but with how much attention it receives on the Internet, to say it's not notable in general requires a diligent disregard for truth. Reswobslc 02:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, I am not desputing notability at all here. Second, one reason can taken from WP:MM:
  • The page is very short and cannot or should not be expanded terribly much.
    • Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 02:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another reason is that I can not see how this will pass WP:V because of potential dispute over what is and what isn't a reliable source. This means that the article itself will be limited in length. In this case, then, I suggest it might be best to be merged into it's company instead of standing on its own. -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 02:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not short because there's nothing to say, it's short at the moment because I didn't want to go to the effort of a lot more good work in the last two hours only to find it was going to be deleted! If it's not worthy of existing, why then? (screaming aaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh!) Everyone seems so sure that this article shouldn't exist, but no one can stick to a single reason why. First one complains it reads too much like an ad. But then six people re-write it from scratch to the satisfaction of the first guy, only for the rest who seconded that it was an ad now say it's not notable. Like, what makes any of them qualified to say it's not notable? If it gets thousands of Google hits, has a dozen websites dedicated to it, a 3000-member Yahoo group, reviews of four major computer magazines and shelf space in major computer products chain in the US, is that not notable enough? If I tagged for AfD every item that was LESS notable, I would be permanently banned (or Wikipedia would have an enormous AfD backlog). So why this? Understood those that HAVEN'T heard of it outnumber those who have, so now that's supposedly somehow criteria for deleting it. So it gets deleted on the basis of kangaroo "clear consensus" (bull if I ever heard of it, would we be here talking about it if there were consensus?) SO during its deletion review discussion, it's noted that the device was actually notable, but that the article maybe didn't cite its sources inline enough, and should be recreated with inline sources. So now we recreate a stub that cites its sources and avoids sounding like an ad but now it's supposedly no good because too short. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, What'll it be next? If I add even one word to it, it will be too long for someone else! Or, apparently there will be a potential dispute over "what's a reliable source", as though CNET and ZDNET and LinuxDevices and PC Magazine are all just junk spammers out there. Just kidding of course, it will undoubtedly get longer unless someone feels the need to delete it first. Those who want this deleted, please make up your mind why it shouldn't exist, or at least give a reason other than that someone (who no longer feels that way in the first place) nominated it as such. Or how about a new WP:LS policy, to say articles about non-notable LinkStations should not exist! (of course, such a policy should avoid explaining why, for fear that it might become "notable"!) Or just delete it and put a "do not recreate" stub and end the aggravation once and for all! (not that Wikipedia will benefit from that, but hey, whoever does it will get to feel important while they do!) Reswobslc 03:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Finally, if anyone truly believed what they say about the Linkstation when they say it's not notable, ads, whatever, why don't they say the same thing about the Kuro Box. The Kuro Box is essentially the Japanese version of the EXACT SAME PRODUCT... Where is its AfD nomination? Reswobslc 03:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I'm not so sure what one wants out of this listing, it is now EXTENSIVELY referenced. I'm sure I can add more references but this seems like enough. I think this listing is Wikified enough!! It's improssible to describe the devices thoroughly and not have it come across as slightly ad like. I think this is as good as you can do. Please fix it if you think you can make it less ad-like. I think a combined listing of Kurobox/LinkStation/TeraStation would make alot of sense. These devices taken together are very notable.Raumka 00:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you want to merge it, then please DO NOT merge it with MELCO!As one of the main admins of www.linkstationwiki.net i can tell you that the Linkstation and Terastation Community are completely independent of any company. We do not get support from anywhere except the users and developers of the linkstations/terastations. The kuroboxes are supported a little by design as they are targeted at linux-developers...they only get a month warranty. At the moment we are trying to merge the three communities to one big one to bundle the knowledge and to push development. So if you want to merge it, then merge it with the kurobox and the terastation as these devices are related from the hardware and software point of view. I think deleting the page again would be a bad thing as it would make the it harder to for users to find good and valid information how to enhance the possibilities of buffalo's/melco's NAS devices. all three categories kurobox - terastation - linkstation should be presented either together or seperate with relation to each other over a superior category. --mindbender 85.124.221.56 02:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • MERGE as per nomination. It seems that this should be moved into it's company's page or some similar article. It just doesn't seem like enough to stand on its own. User: 70.16.156.52
      • MERGE WHY on earth are we talking about merging this with Melco?????? The Melco page didn't even exist until I created it. Even though the LinkStation is made by Buffalo there are other products made by this company. If you want to merge it with anything merge it with the Kuro Box listing, after all the Kuro Box and LinkStation share essentially the same hardware. Either that or just get rid of it completely.Raumka 04:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • KEEP As some others already mentioned, it makes no sense to merge this page with Melco. Or would you consider merging Microsoft_Windows with Microsoft, which would even be more proximate? The big thing behind the Linkstation, Terrastation and Kuroboxes is the steadily growing community behind it, the continuing expansion of its capabilities by this community, and this both in connection with the increasing importance of NAS devices in present and future times. As for all the arguments on why deleting this article, lets compare it with NSLU2: NSLU2 is shorter and has not a single inline reference. On the other hand is comparable with the Linkstation/Terrastation/Kurobox as a NAS device running Linux. The NSLU2 article is neither marked stub nor for deletion. What makes that article "noticable" and this one not, what is the difference? Ferretty 08:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • RENAME to Buffalo Network Attached Storage series. This seems to fit the style better. The particular series shares the same notability, and they're known by Buffalo and not Melco, just like Marlboro cigarettes are known by Marlboro, not Philip Morris. (While LinkStation, Kuro Box, and TeraStation adequately say what the article's about, the three-item list looks really awkward. Melco seems to make too many other things that don't merit the distinction of these three.) If every Simpsons episode and every 15th century Catholic bishop can have an article, no doubt so can this series.
    • MERGE or RENAME' as per nomination, though it might be best for Kuro Box, though Melco, the manufacturer, would be an ideal merge place as well. -- 151.197.233.58 19:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • MERGE It seems that this has been done already with the Kuro Box listing and whatever this new name is Buffalo network-attached storage series... not so sure I like it but whatever at least Linkstation, LinkStation, Kuro Box, Terastation and TeraStation all point to it. - Raumka 20:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know that ultimately I am primarily guilty for doing this, but I think there may be too many references :-) - Raumka 20:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

玄 - (Black or Expert?) 箱 - box[edit]

If there is someone who is a native Japanese speaker can clear this up for me I know that the han symbol: 箱 means box. But the symbol 玄 in my understanding literally means deep for profound and has been taken to mean expert. However phonetically the pronunciation sounds like the japanese word for black. I believe this a double entendre since the box itself is black in color. Raumka

I'd be willing to bet you're right - look at the logo at the top of http://www.kurohako.com. Reswobslc 22:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I think くろ is the phonetic pronunciation for both the kanji characters 玄 meaning deep/profound/abtuse (presumably expert) and 黒 meaning black. Kind of like the phonetic pronunciation for reed and read are the same but the words have two different meanings. However if there is a native japanese speaker who knows better, please correct me. Raumka 19:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My dictionary gives "mysterious" as one meaning of that particular kanji. I asked a Japanese friend about it and she said it could be considered "expert" as in "expert knowledge" only known to a few, but that "expert" is not really a good translation of it. I don't know where it came from because the true meaning seems pretty clear - it's a box for experts, not an "expert box". You need certain uncommon knowledge to use it, meaning it's use is limited to a select few with the expertise to operate it. I'll update the article. Mojo-chan (talk) 19:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Buffalo-inc.gif[edit]

Image:Buffalo-inc.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Buffalo network-attached storage series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Buffalo network-attached storage series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Buffalo_network-attached_storage_series&oldid=1200426674"