Talk:Digi Communications

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

Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided - the DigiFilm external link has absolutely nothing to do with RCS&RDS, thus it has no reason to be mentioned on this page. -- Wikimalu | Talk 12:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Criticism" section of the RCS&RDS article does not respect Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, is completely irrelevant to the description (as opposed to the perception) of the company, and the only refferences it quotes are romanian language online news, which have a very small refference value due to bombastic headlines and emphasis on shock value, a la tabloids. Worth mentioning is the fact that a "Criticism" section is not part of any of the commonly accepted articles about (other) companies. -- Wikimalu | Talk 07:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not irrelevant - criticism/controversy pages over services exist for the pages of many companies in Wikipedia, such as AOL, AT&T, Microsoft, and seems to be an accepted practice on en:wiki. There are even whole pages dedicated to criticism of companies and corporations, such as Criticism of Microsoft. Even companies within Romania have a criticism headline such as Romtelecom, so I find this argument as void. Furthermore, it is NPOV since the perception of a company is very important, RDS having a highly negative image in many segments of Romanian society, it is necessary to bring out reasons for it. Furthermore, the statements are referenced - I did not make up the erdeesh commercials that became a media phenomenon, being aired on national television and radio, nor did I publish articles and comments on the state of their service. Oh, and the "bombastic" article you were writing about was in published media, not on-line media, hot news being some sort of news aggregation service. Furthermore, I cannot find any references in English, since the company does not operate outside Romania. --Xanthar 21:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I should rephrase, since apparently I gave the impression that I'm opposed to cricism/controversy. The major examples you offered have one thing in common. They have controversy sections in the page of the main article, with "Criticism of XYZ" being separate articles. Please keep in mind that controversial issues are completely different from criticism, since the later often implies more informed opinions. For instance, bill delays affect under 10% of the RCS&RDS Bucharest customers, being a virtually unheard of mishap in the rest of the country. This makes the issue at most controversial, since it's clearly not definitory for the company's business practices per se. Further more, the placement of the "Criticism" section in the article comes before the services, which are a part of the company's definition (thus within the scope of the article). My suggestion is that following the precedents of the AOL, AT&T, Microsoft articles, there should either be a "Controversies" section placed after the company's definition in the article (which means after services and company-pertaining notes), or a wholly different "Criticism of" article, a la Criticism of Microsoft. -- Wikimalu | Talk 16:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of channels[edit]

There used to be a list of channels available on Wikipedia showing RCS & RDS's channels, but due to Wikipedia's policies, it's since been removed. However, the link to the deleted page was still in the article. As I think this information is relevant to readers, I've replaced the dead link to a Wiki with an active page on RCS & RDS's channels; however, the list could do with some updating, if anyone here is able to contribute. Wyp (talk) 12:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on RCS & RDS. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gobbledygook[edit]

"motivating its decision on assumptions and facts that are supposed to happen." I literally cannot imagine what this intends to mean. - Jmabel | Talk 13:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Digi_Communications&oldid=1167668748"