Talk:Braigo

Braigo is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Writing systems High‑importance

	Writing portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Redirecting the inventor's article

Since there's been no movement (as discussed at User talk:Techie123#Shubham Banerjee and Braigo in September) to merge a small amount of the Shubham Banerjee text into this Braigo article and then redirect the inventor's article to Braigo § The inventor (plus that section already exists anyway), I decided to move the redirection process along.

The redirect page's history will preserve the wikitext of the inventor's article for any editor who wants to access some of it to reuse it. To simplify this process (but remember to not reuse too much text!):

Go to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shubham_Banerjee&oldid=637136462 (the last version before the redirect).
Click Edit at the top right-hand of the page.
Copy any text you decide to reuse.
Leave the old version page without modifying it.
Paste the text into the edit window of the Braigo article, and then merge it into Braigo § The inventor while keeping a neutral balance.

Sorry that my real-life limitations won't let me do more than this right now and will leave me unreliable afterwards. I have to do what I can in the moment or it gets lost.

To editor Techie123:, I do believe you are earnest, so I've tried to explain why more is not better in this case. If you still have questions about why the Shubham Banerjee article was converted to a redirect, please notify me on this page or elsewhere (see Wikipedia:Notifications), I will try to come back and respond to you.

No conflict of interest, yet not a neutral point of view

From User talk:Techie123:

Do you know, or are you related to, or represent Bannerjee or Braigo Labs. in any way? 220 of Borg 22:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
comment from Techie123
I am not related to the subject, what has fascinated me is this young kid is trying to make a difference. all references i have got is from newspapers or new[s] items.

Even though you may have no legal conflict of interest, Wikipedia is not for giving amazing young techies (and Shubham Banerjee is an amazing young techie) exposure or a leg-up, and that length just makes it worse. It's counter-productive for both Wikipedia AND the subject of a premature article, a subject that does not yet meet notability guidelines. It leads people to mistrust everything in the article, or at minimum roll their eyes at it. It simply doesn't look good.

I agree; the phrase "most cheapest, silent, IOT enabled, and light weight braille printer or embosser using new patent pending technology along with the Intel's Edison Chip with associated development board to bring a consumer oriented braille printer/embosser to the market" is used very frequently in the article and looks (compared to other WP articles) very unpolished. 212.56.100.202 (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I took out one repetition of the above sentence/paragraph and rewrote it, still communicating the same information but in a more digestible form, for the 2.0 section. Didn't realize the particular sentence was part of the talk page until after my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrGoodEgg (talk • contribs) 05:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notable news versus interesting but not notable news

Sometimes a person is in the news not because he is notable, but because he is interesting. Braigo, in my opinion, has met the notability guidelines. However, Shubham Banerjee's personal story is interesting because he is so young. If you take that interesting part of the story away, he is not yet notable enough to have more than a section in the article of his invention and company.

Inflation reduces visibility and impact

Here's what this situation reminds me of: I was in the Who's Who of High School Students (or some such thing) in the 80s. But this is the first time in my *entire* life that I have used that fact. Why? All you had to do was pay to get in. Now, I didn't, and was included anyway, but I have no way to prove that. The inflationary nature of that "honor" meant that its notability was immediately *devalued to nothing*. And that is what we are working to prevent here on Wikipedia.

Also, the longer something is, the less time someone will want to spend reading it. (I know this is ironic given how many words I'm using to explain this, but shorter discussions on a few pages haven't worked yet and, really, I don't have the energy to make this shorter.) Ten-page resumes, unless specifically asked for, get thrown out, while one- or two-page resumes get 30 seconds of skimming or less. So, balance is key and more is not necessarily better in communication.

I truly hope this helps, because I do think that Shubham Banerjee is on his way to having a stellar career, and I don't want anything to drag him down, even a little bit. Balance is key in all things! If you do know him a little in real life, tell him a former tech writer (see my user page) who is disabled sends her best wishes and appreciates the focus of his work. :) --Geekdiva (talk) 09:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Geekdiva: , appreciate all your thoughtful response. But this was already discussed with 220 of Borg and was split into 2 parts. To editor 220 of Borg: what do you suggest to User:Geekdiva's feedback?Techie123 (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this response from Techie123 to here at the bottom as it was right in the middle of Geekdiva's rather lengthy post, and unindented, which was a bit confusing. --220 of ^Borg 18:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Techie123, I'm not sure what you mean by "... was split into 2 parts"? 220 of ^Borg 19:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Braigo. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's 2018 - time to call it vaporware?

So it's now 2018 and this thing, that was supposed to use mostly off the shelf parts, still hasn't been released. It's not unreasonable at this point to assume it never will be. I think at some point (and considering the problems with the original article) this entry should be rewritten to reflect that fact. Also I have a feeling there are many initially well meaning investors who must have some questions about where their money went. I'm wondering if this whole thing was somehow a scam to begin with, or if the product was legitimate but someone (maybe the parents in charge of the company) basically took the money and ran away. Maybe the team managing the company just didn't have the experience to launch a product? If there's any info on what happened please share. Anyway if there are no updates is it safe to call it vaporware at this point? I'm gonna add a sentence to the introduction of the article at least mentioning it still hasn't been released. MrGoodEgg (talk) 06:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As of 2022 It appears that their website is no longer loading, and their twitter account hasn't posted since 2018. Perhaps I missed something? --Mbrickn (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to have gone. A great pity. Thisfox (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]