Talk:WD TV

marked with the advert tag

This article has been marked with the advert tag to show that it reads like an advertisement. This doesn't make sense to me. I don't see advertisement-style language, I see reasonably neutral and factual language. I have removed the advert tag.

--Lucas gonze (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gen 1 did not have component video output, did it?

As far as I know, the first generation did not have component video output, just HDMI and composite KeeterJ (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OMG so useful

I'm sorry if this is not an appropriate comment for this section, but OMG this article is so useful. I was so confused about the many models of the WD TV that I was about to give up and get a Roku or Apple TV instead. This article is the first thing that has made it clear for me so now I can go out and buy a WD TV. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.65.87 (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WD TV Live & 6 Video DACs

According to SMP865x product brief (http://www.sigmadesigns.com/uploads/documents/SMP8650_br.pdf) there are already 6 video DACs on SMP8654 & 8655 chips, so no tweaking was needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.143.97.116 (talk) 09:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WD TV - WDLXTV Hack

Mr. Walter Görlitz: You can't undo QUOTABLE and VERIFIABLE contributions, even if they come from a forum. The publishers of the quoted hacked firmware can only be found on said forum, and the quotes come from senior developers. Too bad not everything on Wikipedia comes from well-funded commercial "dot com" sites. Next time, please post your reasons on the comments section before CENSORING other's contributions. If your case is of Wikilawyering, I will be required to report you to a moderator so he(she) can settle the matter in a most consensed manner. Have a nice day. Flurry (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I, and every other other Wikipedia, should remove links to sources that are not reliable. See WP:RS. If the hacked firmware violates copyright, we should not ever link to information about it. See WP:ELNEVER. If the material is sufficiently notable, some other reliable source will have written about it. The real problem is that you didn't actually link to specific statements, but rather simply to the root of the forums. http://b-rad.cc/wdlxtv and http://forum.wdlxtv.com/viewforum.php?f=10 At least in your most recent efforts to circumvent RS you linked to a specific forum post. If you would like to take this up with administrators, feel free to discuss it at WP:ANI or if you do think that these forums are reliable sources, you can ask for intervention at WP:RSN. Alternately, you could ask for a third-party opinion along the lines of Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

Are we able to find photos that we can use to demonstrate the different between different models? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.144.10 (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find some, great. As long as they comply with Wikipedia:Copyrights rules, feel free to upload them and add them here. See Help:Files for details on that. In short, if you take them yourself or you find them on a site where there's a compatible copyright, you could upload them. If they 're from a commercial site, or don't list a copyright, then the copyright is likely not compatible with Wikipedia's. But don't all of the devices look pretty much the same? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]