| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the ROLM article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Culture edit
A section on this would be appropriate, citing the Rec Center, Halloweens skits, etc. Need to find sources. (John User:Jwy talk) 17:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Inaccuracies edit
From the article:
In 1984 IBM partnered with (and later acquired) ROLM Communications in Santa Clara. ROLM started to lose pace with Nortel due to product issues and they never recovered. The 9751 CBX, which has IBM's name on it, was initially a successful product; but when ISDN service became more affordable, IBM never really updated the 9751 to integrate correctly with ISDN. Nortel leaped ahead on that issue alone; Avaya and others gained ground and started to overtake ROLM. IBM's ROLM division was later half sold to Siemens AG in 1990. By 1993, Siemens bought out IBM's share in ROLM and the downturn continued. The ROLM name was eventually dropped in the late 1990s.
This paragraph is dealing with events in the 1980's and 1990's... Avaya was part of Lucent Technologies until 2000, and didn't exist as a separate entity during the ROLM lifespan. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 10:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
cleanup needed edit
The article needs serious cleanup. 97.67.5.12 (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
From the article:
The FUCM (Fast Underwater Cruise Missile) and SUCM (Slow Underwater Cruise Missile)[citation needed] programs were rumored at the time, but that opportunity never materialized.
This sentence is a stupid prank or could be considered as vandalism. It should be removed. 69.181.162.200 (talk) 02:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Major Cleanup edit
The current (January 2013) edition of the article reads very poorly as a scholarly article as there are elements missing and available online. (references fourth-coming).
Will be updating during the month of January, with appropriate waits for deliberation (2 weeks). Richard.rolm-ca.Rieger (talk) 06:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyright problem removed edit
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)