Talk:Gadget
Contents |
[edit] Deletion discussion
This article has been listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion in the past. See /deletion for the discussion archive.
I'd like to know what "gadget" means, but I'd also like to know what "to have multiple issues" means. Wikipedia should set a standard for English usage, and using this catchall bullshit euphemism should be discouraged as a matter of editorial policy. In other words, I have an issue with "issue" and "multiple issues" should be replaced with "multiple problems" or "multiple shortcomings," or else "there are multiple criticisms of this article" or "this article may not be up to Wikipedia standards for multiple reasons," etc.
[edit] External links
Sorry, maybe I've placed the link in the wrong category. I guess I should have placed it under References and not External links. But why do you say the link I placed was commercial? There was another one, which was not placed by me; may it was that link which made you erase both the text and the link. I ask you to reconsider you decision about my contributions, because I do it for everyone, and if you think logically, there is almost no way (at least yet), you can find sourced information on this particular topic.
I'm writing this to User:Ohnoitsjamie. I see that you like communicating with other members of wikipedia through talk pages so I didn't want to trash up your personal talk page with this message. Siliconov 09:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rv
I couldn't find any other classification of gadgets anywhere, so I placed my own classification back. The site I linked to the article is my reference source, I hope you will not see it as a commercial again, as it is not. If you still wish to delete everything I contribute to the community, please give me reasons for that, because I do it for everyone and not for me. I don't benefit from this... Siliconov 07:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- A review site with ads does not meet WP:Reliable sources criteria. OhNoitsJamie Talk 07:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 2 years later and it is still basically a definition page
Perhaps this needs to be revisited. This article, by the nature of its topic, will not progress further than giving a definition of gadget and a few weak examples (which imo violate pov since what you think is a gadget I might not). Fully 1/2 of this entry is a definition/entymology and the other half can be taken care of by a list. KsprayDad 18:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Why is iPhone a "gadget"?
The page says gadgets are often thought of as a "novelty". That infers that the iPhone is a novelty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.80.165 (talk) 14:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Intuition for Amiga
Not sure if it is notable enough to include in the main article, but if I rembember correctly from my Amiga days, gadgets was a rather central concept in Intuition (Amiga). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.228.208.145 (talk) 06:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
