Template talk:Infobox computing device/Archive 1

Archive 1

Move

From WP:CFD: It is probably also a good idea to move Template:Information appliance to Template:Infobox IA. Jacoplane 00:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge

This is really just an uglier duplicate of {{infobox computer}}, so I'm going to work on merging them. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Do what I did for the now extinct Template:Infobox PMP: switch all Infobox computer articles to Information appliance/Infobox IA, then delete Infobox Computer. The monopoly is growing... --Jw21/PenaltyKillah 23:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

"information appliance" is a horrible, contrived term and the other infobox is much more widely used. Plus, I've got some serious misgivings about {{infobox}} which haven't yet been addressed. Merging the other way makes more sense. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: the giant merge is complete. All computing devices should now be using this template. Woo. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Price?

Why is there no price field, like in Template:Infobox_Motorcycle? or at least an initial price. --Hm2k (talk) 11:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

hCalendar microformat

{{editprotected}}

Please add the hCalendar microformat, thus:

bodyclass  = vevent
titleclass = summary
class1     = organiser 

the relevant date can then be included by using {{Start date}} for the Release date vlaue. Thank you. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 15:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Protected?

Apparently this is a protected template because it's "high-risk", however reviewing the history I can't understand what justifies it to be "high-risk". I propose it no longer needs to be protected. --Hm2k (talk) 11:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, there are ~286 links to/ transclusions of this template, including a few from talk pages. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That only indicates the impact levels, not the risk levels. 87.254.83.229 (talk) 02:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Prices?

What happened to WP:NOPRICES? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 10:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The WP:NOPRICES shortcut is only three days older than the merge which introduced the base price parameter here; I dare say that the template it was merged from contained the parameter before WP:NOT made any mention of prices. But yeah, it's removal time. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

VG system merge

{{editprotected}}

I've started a sandbox for this page, in which I've merged in the relevant fields from {{Infobox Video game system}}. Just needs syced; I'll update the documentation once that's complete. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the picture of the PS3 on the side of the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bozo33 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason the merged version moved "predecessor" and "successor" to somewhere in the middle of the box? IMO, it made more sense for them to be at the end. Also, it seems "Media" and "Units sold" are now output twice (13 and 23, and 9 and 30, respecively).

BTW, you forgot to fix the double redirects created when you redirected {{Infobox Video game system}}; I fixed that for you. Anomie⚔ 22:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the duplication of "Media" and "Units sold" needs to be fixed, and I agree that "Predecessor" and "Successor" should be placed at the end. --Silver Edge (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You know, that template is really a pain to adjust; if you move one field, you have to renumber everything after. Here is a stab at what the requested edit should look like. For future reference, running it through this perl snippet will do that automatically:

perl -pwe 'BEGIN { $l=1; $d=1; } $l++ if s/^\| label\d+ */ sprintf("| label\%-6s", $l) /e; $d++ if s/^\| data\d+ */ sprintf("| data\%-7s", $d) /e;'

Anomie⚔ 01:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Output order?

I don't know that the current order (just above) is really optimal. I'll post it below, people can mess with it, and if no one else can use my perl snippet I will take that and make a new editprotected once it is worked out. Anomie⚔ 01:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Developer
2. Manufacturer
3. Product family
4. Type
5. Generation
6. Release date
7. Retail availability
8. Discontinued
9. Units sold
10. Units shipped
11. Base price
12. Media
13. Operating system
14. Power
15. CPU
16. Storage capacity
17. Memory
18. Display
19. Graphics
20. Input
21. Controller input
22. Camera
23. Touchpad
24. Connectivity
25. Online services
26. Dimensions
27. Weight
28. Best-selling game
29. Backward compatibility
30. Predecessor
31. Successor
32. Related articles
33. Web site

Disabled the editprotected request here. You gotta be more clear about what needs doing; I'm lost. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} As I said above, "Here is a stab at what the requested edit should look like." That edit will fix the errors discussed above. This subsection was intended for further discussing the best order for the parameters, although no one seems to be particularly interested in that. Anomie⚔ 03:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and implemented your request above - it makes sense. I put the middle section (technical specs) in a different order than what you had above - in my opinion, it makes more sense. Take a look?

I have no idea what order things should be in, I just put the list there to let others discuss it if they want. Anomie⚔ 22:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Units sold

...appears twice. Eightball (talk) 03:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Media does too. See the editprotected request above. Anomie⚔ 03:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and fixed both of these. Should be good now. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

{{{unitssold|}}} needs to be changed to {{{units sold|{{{unitssold|}}}}}} so that the "Units sold" section will display in articles that already have the parameter written as "units sold" instead of "unitssold", similar to "Units shipped" in template. --Silver Edge (talk) 12:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikilinked titles

{{editprotected}} I believe none of the pages linked from the row titles provide necessary information, and, indeed, some of them are actively wrong (video games?) and the whole thing smack of overlinking. Please remove. 87.254.83.229 (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Some of the links may be bad, but others (e.g. that for CPU are good. Let's discuss which should be kept, and which go, and not throw the baby out with the proverbial. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed removal of Best-selling game/top game parameter

I propose the removal of the "Best-selling game"/"top game" parameter as per WP:No original research and WP:SELFPUB.

Nearly all the video game console articles using the aforementioned parameter violates WP:NOR, because the source(s) provided with the video game does not specifically state that it is the best-selling game for the console it was released for, the source(s) only indicate that the video game sold X number of copies. I believe the Nintendo GameCube article is the only article that has a video game listed, using this parameter, with a source that specifically states that it is the best-selling video game for its respective console. If this parameter is removed, this information can be rewritten in prose elsewhere in the GameCube article.

The use of this parameter, excluding the Nintendo GameCube article, also violates WP:SELFPUB ("Articles and posts on Wikipedia, or other websites that mirror Wikipedia content, may not be used as sources"), since it is most likely that List of best-selling video games is being used as a source to determine which video game is the best-selling game for a console, which is chosen based on the game that currently has the highest sourced sales figure.

If there is consensus to remove this parameter, the following code is required to be removed from this template:

| label28 = [[List of best-selling video games|Best-selling game]]
| data28 = {{{top game|{{{topgame|}}}}}} --Silver Edge (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

But, it's not referring to List of best-selling video games, but the reference that the game is best-selling. There IS a list of best-selling games made by the company itself. Therefore, it's not original research.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The link to "List of best-selling video games" is for context on sales numbers, which should always come from reliable sources. The actual item shown in that field should be corroborated by those sources, and the company's own sales figures should be reliable enough. IMO, a proper source in this case would be one that ranks the individual game's sales against other games for the system, rather than a source about that game itself, so that it can be immediately verified in one shot rather than having to search for the data. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I see the point of confusion here: The problem is not with the parameter itself - the label for the parameter links to a Wikipedia article, which is correct - it links to a general list of best-selling games. We count on the data on that page to be correctly sourced, of course. But the confusion seems to be in how the individual game is referenced. It's up to each game system's article to provide a source for the best-selling game item. Sources for that data can be garnered from the list article, but the item must be referenced to that source, not to the list article. So in any cases where a system article is referencing the list article directly, that should be corrected. But I think the information itself is valid and should remain, as it is significant and notable to the information about the game system. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused here. ZXCVBNM's comment makes little to no sense to me, as I'm pretty sure it's directed at a specific use of the parameter somewhere. Not all game platform companies release a statement about which games are best-selling on a regular basis, if at all. (They don't seem to care so much if it's not a game they published themselves.) A quick look around the console articles using this parameter shows me that it is really only encouraging people to violate WP:SYNTH, because while figuring out which game is best-selling may seem like a routine calculation, labeling a game as such is, in fact, presenting new information. And KieferSkunk, the problem, then, isn't just that the list of best-selling video games is used as a reference the individual articles, but also that the citations used solely to report the number sold in the list article is turned around and used in the console article as a source stating that what is listed is its best-selling game, while they really say nothing of the sort.

I see no compelling reason to keep this parameter then, as it is rarely used within Wikipedia standards. In the few cases where it is, the information should be mentioned elsewhere in the article anyway. KhalfaniKhaldun 20:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I can live with that. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sound, Video, and Price.. missing.

This template is used for many home computers. And those computers certainly had special and varying sound hardware (one example is Commodore 64). It also features a "display" parameter, but misses a "video" parameter or something along that line to generate something for the display. These things ought to be in the template. As well as introduction price. But it's hardlocked. So for now I will do a workaround with the base template. Electron9 (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I have undone your fork of the template to {{Infobox Personal computer}}. If you have issues with parameters here, please discuss them rather than forking the template. If you wish to propose changes, make them in the sandbox and provide a rationale here. I have imported the changes you made from the recent fork into the sandbox to provide a starting point. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Rationale:

0) Home computers had special and varying sound hardware. Compare ABC 80 and Commodore 64.

1) The price at the introduction year helps to comprehend it's place in the marketplace.

The price matter has already been pointed out by Hm2k in 2008-08-26 without any action. And sound parameter is still missing, but my template got redirected to the locked template that still miss that and price. The sound paramter is needed to indentify the capabilities on the product category. Home computers had its "soundcard" builtin in ~95% of the cases. I get the feeling the editors of this template won't listen. Electron9 (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree with either of those suggestions. You're mistaken about the base price parameter: it was added after that comment was made, and then removed again. I reckon that including an introductory price is fair enough. I don't see there being any ground for the assertion that "the editors of this template won't listen" to changes, but the solution is not to fork the template in any case. I'll see whether I can get both of these changes implemented. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Update

{{editprotected}}

Requesting sync with the sandbox to re-add a parameter for introductory price (re-labelled to ensure that it is treated as a historical rather than current value, per WP:NOPRICES) and add a "sound" parameter for built-in sound hardware. Neither should be controversial. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done don't forget about the docs btw. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Dimensions not working??

MSI Wind Netbook has an infobox specifying the dimensions of the computer but it's not visable. And the template source code (label27) specifies it. Aswell as the documentation. This just seems quite odd. Bug? Electron9 (talk) 14:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Attributes are case-sensitive. When {{infobox Computer}} was merged here, its own parameters (which were capitalised) were supported for compatibility purposes; however, this was not extended to parameters not supported by the old {{infobox Computer}}, such as {{{dimensions}}}. I've fixed the article by making all of its parameters lowercase. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sound not working

Hi, I'm over at iPhone and I've noticed that the sound parameter is not showing up. Is this my fault or the templates'? (And wouldn't "audio" be a bit more formal?) Thanks in advance, HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Never mind; fixed it myself.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 22:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please don't replace the names of parameters on already-deployed templates without providing backwards compatibility. {{{audio|}}} needs to be changed to {{{audio|{{{Sound|}}} }}}. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with backwards compatibility, but I prefer the term "Audio" to be displayed to the user in the infobox. Is there a way to do both?--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I now found several articles with non-working audio, ohh now it's sound, or maybe it was audio?. Please stay with ONE choice. Or update all articles using the template yourself. Electron9 (talk) 21:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I still don't believe the sound is working any more. Both the example and documentation needs to be updated, or the person who broke all of the

computer templates needs to revert their changes. It's unacceptable to merge templates and provide a bad example. It's more unacceptable to change templates

and not test the impact of those changes.

There are enough problems policing facts to be running around fixing obvious errors that simple testing would find.

I'd recommend splitting computer and information appliance, the two subjects are very different, since computers go back several thousand years,

there are analog computers and other varieties of computing devices (some mechanical) that will require new infobox types, distinct from

[[Information Appliance<]], which is stritcly a digital computer thing. (Ultimately, templates that inherit from each other is a more useful

solution, but I'm not proposing that here)rhyre (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

hProduct microformat

{{editprotected}}

| bodyclass  = vevent
| titleclass = summary

to:

| bodyclass  = hproduct vevent
| titleclass = fn summary 

and add:

| class2 = brand
| class8 = price

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

hProduct microformat and identifier (UPC, etc)

Can someone add a section for several hProduct identifer rows, for UPC and such? Something similar to:

| label35    = identifier1
| class35    = identifier
| label36    = type1
| class36    = identifier::type
| label37    = identifier2
| class37    = identifier
| label38    = type2
| class38    = identifier::type

Int21h (talk) 23:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Help further define service field

Currently, the "service" field is defined as "online service(s) offered". This apparently is quite vague. In the case of a smart phone, such as the iPhone, additional applications could be installed, and therefore increase the online services. I can easily see someone add, for example, a Twitter application, and then add "Twitter" to the service field of the smart phone. In other words, the service field could end up being huge and virtually meaningless. I want to avoid something like this from happening. The only way to fix this is to write better documentation for the "service" field, and just about all other fields in this infobox. Groink (talk) 02:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge with {{Mac specs}}

{{editprotected}}

Requesting sync with the sandbox to allow for {{Mac specs}} to be merged here. No new parameters, simply support for the attribute titles used in that template. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

 Not done The hcard classes are different between the sandbox and the original. I'm not sure if that is intentional —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't deliberate. Now fixed. Re-enabling. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears TheDJ already merged it. At least there is no difference between the current sandbox and the template. MBisanz ^talk 20:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"Supports:" field

Any objections if I add an optional "Supports:" field? That would be useful for media players, e-book readers etc. to indicate what content formats or other standards are supported by the device, e.g.: "Supports: MP3, WAV, OGG".  Sandstein  08:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I see that there is already a "Music:" field for this, although that is a bit counterintuitive for e-book readers, as in Sony Reader.  Sandstein  08:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hearing Aid Compatibility

I am adding hearing aid compatibility rating information on phones as I find it. A while ago I added it to the "mobile phone" infobox, but now I see many (smart) phones are using the "information appliance" infobox instead. Please add 'hac=' to information appliance, or otherwise indicate the distinction between when this template should be used instead of mobile phone.

(some reference pages: Motorola Droid, HTC Hero, Blackberry Storm, Treo 700p, Treo 700w, Treo 650, Treo 755p, Palm Treo Pro)

Dsh13 (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Specific absorption rate

It would probably be in the best interest, and safety, to add Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) to wireless telephone devices. We know that various governments have placed limits on radiation levels, but how much is really too much? Clearly, the cell phone is an important tool that many people use daily. But we also don't want to use phones with an SAR of 1.6 W/kg if the maximum SAR limit is 1.6 W/kg. So how much is too much? Could it be that 1 W/kg is too much? The lower exposure would be better but at the same time would lower SARs mean greater inadequate phone service? --Bushido Hacks (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

If this figure is widely available enough for devices that there is genuine comparative value in adding it to infoboxes then this could be considered, but we shouldn'd add it for reasons like "it's in the public's best interest". It's in the public's best interest not to use Wikipedia as a health guide. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

CNet has compiled a list of SAR values on just about every phone that is currently on the market in the United States and have matching FCC ID numbers to query information. From this data, comparative values can be made available. --Bushido Hacks (talk) 06:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Remove price parameter

This is confusingly mentioned in an earlier thread. Shouldn't the price parameter be removed because of WP:NOPRICES? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOPRICES is reference to street prices, not to the price often used with the template, such as MSRP. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The previous statement is not correct, or is at least out of date. NOPRICES makes no mention of a distinction between street prices and RRPs or SRPs. What it says is that prices should only be included WITH GOOD REASON, ie if independent reliable sources suggest that the price is worth mentioning. This is not an argument to remove the parameter, but it is an argument to change the template instructions to make clear that using this field should be the exception rather than the norm. I will update the instructions now. GDallimore (Talk) 11:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Model numbers

What happened to the model number field? Many Macintosh models were only listed in this field used in the Mac spec template, not in the article. Can we please get this added back?--Mac128 (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

manufacturer = assembler ?

What is the definition of "manufacturer", I ask because an editor of the iPad article has edited the manufacturer entry to be Foxconn (the Chinese assembler) instead of Apple, thus claiming that Foxconn, not Apple is the manufacturer of the iPad, but I cannot imagine that is the right interpretation. Foxconn also makes the Wii, but the article still lists Nintendo as the manufacturer. And Rightfully so I assume. Mahjongg (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Apple is the designer, developer, licenser, and marketer, not the manufacturer (at least by the common use of these terms). This is reflected by common usage by the media. Further, the explanation given in lead section of our article on manufacturing, which distinguishes manufacturing from engineering and industrial design, suggests that none of what Apple does can be considered manufacturing. I think the articles listing Apple as the manufacturer arise more out of common ignorance rather a deliberate effort to list the party that designs the product in place of the party that assembles it as the manufacturer. The other articles should be edited accordingly, I suggest following the convention used at Amazon Kindle listing both in the form "Foxconn for Apple, Inc." or maybe "Foxconn (contractor)" to avoid confusion. Perhaps a developer/designer entry should be listed in this infobox right below the manufacturer, since most things these days are designed and made by different parties.--Jiang (talk) 01:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this template already has a hidden developer field right above the manufacturer. Why not list Apple as the developer and Foxconn as the manufacturer?--Jiang (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

If there's already a field for 'developer', that would certainly seem to be the best option. It would preserve accuracy of the article, but avoid the confusion of only having the names of (otherwise) unknown companies. 72.88.38.53 (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Jiang, you're suggesting that apple should be listed "right below" foxconn? Really? It seems quite clear to me that the intention of the manufacturer field in the info box is to list the name of the company that is considered to be the maker or creator of the product, not a vendor or subcontractor who assembled the product. Semantical discussions aside, I can think of no reason why foxconn's name should be listed before apple's as you've listed it in both the ipad and iphone articles today. Could you please explain why your giving foxconn precedence over apple? —ArtsMusicFilm (talk) 02:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

As the developer field is already listed before the manufacturer field (I didn't notice this when I made the comment), I have no preference on whether one is listed before the other. It's fine as is.

I don't see how the intention of the manufacturer field is to list the company that designed the product rather than the company that manufactured it. I think people are confused more than anything. --Jiang (talk) 02:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It all depends on what a reader of Wikipedia imagines what "manufacturer" means in this context. Is "manufacturer" the name of the company that is responsible that the specific product comes into existence, or is it the name of the company that does the actual "putting together". When I buy a hamburger at macdonalds do I buy a "macdonalds" hamburger of a "joe the hamburger baker" hamburger. I think the article that would describe the role of foxconn best is the "Contract manufacturer". Mahjongg (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

We cannot ignore common usage of the term in general, and by the media and industry in particular. That Wikipedia articles use one convention might only suggest that Wikipedia is wrong. Ask the average person if Apple makes its own iPods and they may very well think so, or that Gap runs its own sweatshops etc. This is simply not common knowledge (that's the point of branding), and Wikipedia is shaped by common knowledge, as demonstrated by how you thought I was vandalizing the article. Pointing to the dictionary definition of manufacturing: "–noun 1. the making of goods or wares by manual labor or by machinery, esp. on a large scale: the manufacture of television sets. 2. the making or producing of anything; generation: the manufacture of body cells. 3. the thing or material manufactured; product: Plastic is an important manufacture. –verb (used with object) 4. to make or produce by hand or machinery, esp. on a large scale. 5. to work up (material) into form for use: to manufacture cotton. 6. to invent fictitiously; fabricate; concoct: to manufacture an account of the incident. 7. to produce in a mechanical way without inspiration or originality: to manufacture a daily quota of poetry." It mentions labor, machinery, etc. McDonald's (or its franchises) directly employs the people who flip the hamburgers, so I don't think the example is comparable. Foxconn is indeed a contract manufacturer, but the contract manufacturer is still a manufacturer, and this does nothing to imply that Apple is more of a manufacturer than Foxconn.

Based on the plain (dictionary) meaning of the term, the Wikipedia definition of it, the use of the term in this specific situation by those "in the know" like journalists, I think the evidence points strongly to the fact that there is no deliberate effort to label the developer of a product as the manufacturer.

What's your opinion of listing both? I think we do readers a disservice by listing only the developer as the manufacturer. It's simply misleading as saying Apple runs its own factories in China.--Jiang (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand your "quest", but have nothing more to add. People -will- expect to read that Apple is the manufacturer, just like that Nintendo is the manufacturer of the Wii, not Foxconn. When the reader is interested in the details they might want to know that Apple subcontracted the job to foxconn, but that is a side issue. I wish you luck with getting the recognition you seem to seek for foxconn. Mahjongg (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Jiang, could you pls post the links to where the media refers to Foxconn as the manufacturer? Thanks. —ArtsMusicFilm (talk) 02:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I am confused by one thing... Foxconn does not mention they manufacture the ipad anywhere on their website. They in fact, don't even acknowledge it's existence: http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=site:foxconn.com+ipad&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

If a company doesn't claim to be the manufacturer, why would we list them as one here? —ArtsMusicFilm (talk) 04:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Foxconn is a contract manufacturer. They sell to Apple, not the general public, so why would they need to advertise this on their website? Their website provides very little information about them. In fact, the more secretive they are, the more business they get. And they are probably bound by contract not to advertise anything they made. See this article: [1]

Links: PC World CNET

There is, of course, a complex supply chain involving multiple companies. This is something that deserves a section in every article, and cannot be fleshed out by a single entry in the infobox.--Jiang (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's something I don't understand: If Apple, not Foxconn, is the manufacturer, then who is the developer?

If you say 'Apple', because they're the ones who designed it, then that just goes to prove that they aren't really the manufacturer. So, again, who is the 'developer'? 209.90.133.123 (talk) 04:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The consensus I've seen is to list Apple as developer, which rightfully comes first, and Foxconn as manufacturer. I've seen Foxconn identified as an OEM and a contract manufacturer, both parenthetically in the infobox. Skimming both articles, the don't seem very different. Is there a preference which one to use?

SoC and GPU should be added (2 years have passed!)

{{editrequest}} Could someone please add a field for a GPU below the existing CPU, and an additional field above the CPU for SOC? – As some devices are now using SOC instead of the separate CPU and GPU processors. 86.141.186.55 (talk) 11:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. Any one have any objections? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

strange, I've been using 'graphics', but I don't see it on the template page TMV943 (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

There is currently a big confusion and mixup of SoC and CPU on most tablets on wikipedia due to lack of a separate 'System on Chip' field. GPU is also missing. Both SoC and GPU has been added in the mobile phone infobox and since tablets use the same chipset/hardware, this should be added in the information appliance infobox aswell. User931 19:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to add a "GPS" field

I think GPS (global positioning system) would be a reasonable addition for Information Appliance infobox. Some people have been listing this under Connectivity, but that seems a stretch. Thoughts? -- KelleyCook (talk) 14:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Gnulinux, 10 December 2010

{{edit protected}} I think "Series" field is needed.

| label30 = Series | data30 =

| label31 = Predecessor | data31 = | label32 = Successor | data32 = Gnulinux (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} is only to be used for uncontroversial and clearly-explained edits. You haven't explained what "series" is meant to denote, and therefore this does not seem like a no-brainer addition to the template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 01:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Front facing and rear camera ?

A lot of new tablet are going to come to the market with front and rear facing cameras, I thing that we could precise it, like it is done in the smartphone infobox. --Zouzzou (talk) 11:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

What "smartphone infobox"? {{Infobox mobile phone}} has one camera parameter just like this one does. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I meant Mobile phone Infobox, yeah : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_mobile_phone

Sure there is already a camera parameter but we also need has a second camera parameter, which is important since a lot of new devices (like tablets and smartphone) now come with a front facing camera (you can see this parameter in the Mobile Phone infobox) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zouzzou (talk • contribs) 13:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Both can be specified using the same attribute. There's no need to have an additional parameter for a feature used only on a handful of devices. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 14:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Battery ?

We need a "battey" addition for information like mAh . Is there an admin here to make these changes ? Nobody in answering. --Zouzzou (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't power cover battery information? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, don't really know what it covers, it's not specified. I thought power was a bit to generic. Will use this one, thanks --Zouzzou (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Android devices

It would be really helpful to me when I look up an Android device, such as the Samsung Galaxy Tab to be able to quickly answer the question, which screen density[2] is this device (ldpi, mdpi, hdpi, or xhdpi using Google's categorization). I find it difficult to convert from the PPI to DPI units used on wikipedia and the Android manual, on top of the fact that some devices, such as the Galaxy Tab, really fall between two categories. So it would be really helpful to just capture this information in this infobox.

My question - is there a place in the current template for this information? Or would it be appropriate to add a category such as this? -Legaia (talk) 22:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"Generation"

Any guidelines on the appropriate content for this field?--NapoliRoma (talk) 05:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It wikilinks to History of video games if used. That should probably be fixed. --coreycubed / talk 01:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

O-kay...

It wasn't at all clear from reading the documentation (and no, I didn't thoroughly read the comments above, just very quickly scanned for "Generation" -- oops!) that this template is being used for video game consoles, among other things. I figured from its use on HP TouchPad that it covered things like tablets and PDAs only, until I looked just now at what actually uses it.

If we're really going to have one infobox for PCs, smart phones, video game consoles, tablets and such, its documentation needs a serious upgrade.--NapoliRoma (talk) 05:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

sound

Please, sync with the sandbox to re-fix the sound parameter.--KDesk (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Right now it is as "Sound" in the infobox code, but it is as "sound" in the documentation template. It should be in lowercase, as all the other parameters from the infobox. Otherwise, it won't work, as the template is trying to use it as lowercase. --KDesk (talk) 23:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the code it seems that both will work. The code used is

{{{sound|{{{Sound|}}} }}}

This matches the other parameters. Perhaps there is another problem I'm not spotting? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

There isn't another problem :-) this has Thumperward already fixed some hours ago. Thanks Thumperward! --KDesk (talk) 05:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 3 November 2011

Please add:

This is borrowed from Template:Infobox Automobile (label2/data2 there) and should allow adding an alternative name for the system, as is done for automobiles. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Is there any consensus for this to actually be used anywhere? Note that there is no consensus for anything at whatever we're calling article #2639573 this month. Anomie⚔ 20:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a general request to allow specifying an alternative name for any system. Whether there is consensus to actually use it at any particular article seems to be putting the cart before the horse. What's the point in proposing using an infobox to do something not supported by the infobox? It could potentially be proposed for use at Sega Pico (a.k.a Kids Computer Pico), perhaps Game Boy Advanced (a.k.a. GBA), as well as at Sega Genesis and Mega Drive (where consensus does seem to be developing now, by the way). I presume there are other potential uses too, but can't think of any off the top of my head. Just seems like an obvious thing to do since it's orthogonal to how it's done for Automobile Infoboxes. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

My 2¢ - I can see the possible usefulness, but outside of the instances noted above, I don't see that there would be many more alternate names. So, adding the paramater wouldn't hurt, but would it really help? Skier Dude (talk) 00:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Most automobiles don't have alternate names, but it's still in the automobile infobox, and is useful for those articles about automobiles that do have alternate names. All others just ignore it. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The implementation is a bit odd. Below the website URL, really? Shouldn't this be at the top, per the general consensus that we should get common alternative names out of the way quickly? Have a look at the current sandbox code, which places it at the top of the template, and see if that works for you. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Like I didn't realize that order in the list determined where it was displayed in the info box. Duh. Anyway, yeah, that's perfect. Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done; please update the documentation. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done; documentation done and new field put in use at Sega Genesis and Sega Pico. The only nit is that the "as" ends up on the line below "Also known", and so the name ends up being across from "Also known". But I fixed this by preceding the name with an html <br>, thus causing it to drop a line and be across from the "as". --Born2cycle (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The line break is browser / resolution-specific. On my machine, the Pico article didn't wrap "also known as", which meant that the name was misaligned. If you think this is serious enough to mitigate then I can {{nowrap}} the label if you want. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please. The broken "Also known as" looks funny (I'm using Chrome, BTW). --Born2cycle (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Like Looks great! --Born2cycle (talk) 07:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)