Talk:Acer Inc.: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:49, 12 March 2007

Proposed merger of Acer Computer Australia into this article

On October 28, 2006, 01:34 UTC user JonHarder proposed the merger of article Acer Computer Australia into Acer (company). No discussion was opened formally on the Discussion page for either article so it is being opened here. thewinchester 14:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Missing

Some of the Aspire series are missing. UPDATE IT!

-G

I spy copyvio!

http://www.acer-euro.com/vi/page74.jsp.htm = Acer North america.

I don't see the copyright violations on a cursory check, and this is old anyway. Does anyone else see it? Quentin mcalmott 20:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listing of all the products

This part seems pointless. All the different model numbers do not need to be listed here. The different product lines certainly could be, but not each individual model. Quentin mcalmott 20:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's made worse by the vast sea of red links, but I would agree that it doesn't belong here. A List of Acer products page, perhaps, but not on this page. The Alienware article's handling of this has its warts, but the way it lists product lines rather than individual products is much easier to digest. — Aluvus ^t/c 14:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been bold and deleted the extra products, leaving only the name of each product line. It reads better this way, in my opinion. Quentin mcalmott 03:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acer Computer Explorer

Anyone want to include a tidbit about this in the topic?

Old Acer Logo

Why don't we include the old logo?

---210.213.163.186 15:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we want it? It seems to me we should have the new one, and having two logos would be superfluous. Quentin mcalmott 16:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are the top 5 PC manufacturers???

The article mentions that Acer is one of the top 5 PC Manufacturers but does not say what they are. Can someone write them in? I'm curious myself to know what the top 5 are. -- AS Artimour 01:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Competitors

I can't see that this section adds anything worthy to the article, other than an arbitrary list of other computer manufacturers. I propose its removal. Halsteadk 18:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Well, tentatively agreed. I have two suggestions:

A merge List of computer hardware manufacturers or
Creating a new page for List of Computer System Manufacturers and then adding a link on the bottom of the Acer (company) page in the "See Also" section directing the user to the newly created page. -- Bboyskidz 05:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd tend to agree with the second suggestion. Whatever, the list doesn't belong in this article as it should then be reproduced in every other manufacturer's respective article (which is clearly unmaintainable). The list probably needs to quote the markets that the companies operate in (US, UK, etc) so that competitors can be identified. Halsteadk 19:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. I've created a new page (see link and done what I suggested on the second point -- Bboyskidz 22:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nice work, much more useful and objective. I could see there might be an argument that as it doesn't say where each company markets its products it doesn't cover who is in competition, so it doesn't really replace the original content. However, I'd argue that the original content was fairly meaningless anyway - naturally all the big names are in competition with each other and this doesn't need to be stated. Halsteadk 23:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acer America Corp info not correct

I have never edited a page, so I am not sure I want to, but there are some incorrect things in the second paragraph of this section. First the corporate headquarters are in San Jose, Califonia. Second, Acer bought out the Texas Instruments laptop/notebook division. This divison of TI was in Temple TX and Acer decided to keep it there. Also the Temple, Tx facility employs about 200 and that is with significant growth over the past few years (and more to come). Temple handles the repairs and is the only repair center in the US (another is in Missisauga, somewhere in canada). Any comments on this or advice about making the change would be appreciated. Mfergason 17:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-If you feel the article is incorrect, by all means, fix it. that is what wiki is all about! Seems like you know a bit about this article, I say go for it. -- Bboyskidz 21:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will get some sources and make the changes. I used to work for them, that is how I know all of this. Mfergason 16:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acer based on Taiwan or the Republic of China

I think Taiwan is treated as a geographic term in Wikipedia . So it would be better use its official name the "Republic of China" in non-geography-involved description. --Morphi 18:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this is not a political article, ROC should only be used in political articles, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese). Whether ROC is the official name or not, we should always use the common name, see WP:NC (common names). So in this case, we should use Taiwan. It is also confusing to use ROC.--Jerrypp772000 19:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese), it says "Taiwan should not be described either as an independent nation or as a part of the People's Republic of China." Use "Republic of China" as the country name is correct.--Morphi 20:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted below, that document was never accepted by consensus. Don't bother referring to it. And don't insert all those extra blank lines. --Ideogram 20:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There actually is no agreement on a standard here. --Ideogram 19:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what do you mean?--Jerrypp772000 19:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the naming convention discussion is for. There is no Wikipedia-wide agreement on when to use "Taiwan" and when to use "ROC". --Ideogram 19:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's only partially true. We should use "Taiwan" in all non-political contexts, I don't think there is any question about that.--Jerrypp772000 19:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no standard. If there was, we wouldn't be having that discussion. Go ahead and look at all the Taiwan-related articles we have. I guarantee you you will find many exceptions, and if you try to fix them, there will be edit-warring. There is no policy you can point to to back up your opinion. --Ideogram 19:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you mean there are people who put ROC instead of Taiwan for "non-political" context? Well then they should be wrong. There are naming conventions for common names, and the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) only state the "political" NPOV. The poll you started is to amend the current conventions.--Jerrypp772000 20:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That document was never accepted by consensus, and leaves important details unspecified besides. --Ideogram 20:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which articles, can you be more specific, because I want to check them out?--Jerrypp772000 20:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you already forget the controversy over the names Economy of Taiwan and Demographics of Taiwan? Believe me, I have looked at more articles than you have. If you want to assert there is a standard, do your own homework. Be sure to look at Category:Taiwan and Category:Republic of China as well. --Ideogram 20:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, gentlemans, I think we got a consensus. Use of the official name is a NPOV way.--Morphi 20:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't assert a consensus by yourself. The proper phrasing is, "Do we have a consensus to use the official name?" And then you can find out if Jerrypp772000 agrees with you. --Ideogram 20:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know the rules. Though I don't know where the rules comes from, it can do devil things. Hope this can make people to think twice before making a decision. haha --Morphi 21:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know the rules better than you do. And if you are looking for trouble you will get it. --Ideogram 21:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should use ROC. Ideogram, so you mean the poll you started is suppose to set like a boundary between political and non-political articles? I don't think it really matters in this article, this is obviously not political.--Jerrypp772000 21:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The poll I started is to establish consensus for an official policy. There are currently three proposals, one to leave everything as it is (no policy), one that tries to rationalize something close to what we have now (which has no support), and one to replace ROC with Taiwan almost everywhere (except in official titles). As I noted there is no official policy right now. --Ideogram 21:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

Do we have a consensus to use the official name of the Republic of China? (especially Jerrypp77200)

In Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese). it says "Wikipedia treats the Republic of China as a sovereign state with equal status with the People's Republic of China, yet does not address whether they are considered separate nations. Taiwan should not be described either as an independent nation or as a part of the People's Republic of China." and one should write "one must be an ROC citizen to vote in the ROC presidential election" as opposed to "one must be a Taiwanese citizen to vote in the Taiwanese presidential election." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Morphi (talk • contribs).

Note the big POV tag at the top of that page. That might give you a clue as to why I say you should not refer to it. --Ideogram 21:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need a consensus here? For the original version has violated the Political NPOV in Naming conventions (Chinese). --Morphi 21:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many times do I have to say this? That document was never accepted by consensus. Right now every single article has to arrive at its own consensus. --Ideogram 21:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And also, this is not a political article.--Jerrypp772000 22:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jerrypp772000 looks poor. In fact, I am replacing Taiwan with ROC to show how ridiculous it is. Maybe I stop here & move on to the ROC page...--Morphi 22:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that an insult? Also, this is an encyclopedia, not a place where you can edit just to show people something, that's actually called vandalism.--Jerrypp772000 22:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I follow the Wikipedia rules & policies. It is that there's something wrong with the policy to allow evil people doing so. Maybe my intention is evil, but my action is legal. --Morphi 22:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 22:45, 12 March 2007 edit Jerrch (talk \| contribs) 10,953 edits →‎Consensus ← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:49, 12 March 2007 edit undo Morphi (talk \| contribs) 53 edits →‎Consensus Next edit →
Line 104:		Line 104:

	:::Is that an insult? Also, this is an [[WP:ENC\|encyclopedia]], not a place where you can edit just to ''show'' people something, that's actually called [[WP:VANDAL\|vandalism]].--[[User:Jerrypp772000\|Jerrypp772000]] 22:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)		:::Is that an insult? Also, this is an [[WP:ENC\|encyclopedia]], not a place where you can edit just to ''show'' people something, that's actually called [[WP:VANDAL\|vandalism]].--[[User:Jerrypp772000\|Jerrypp772000]] 22:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

			:::: No, I follow the Wikipedia rules & policies. It is that there's something wrong with the policy to allow evil people doing so. Maybe my intention is evil, but my action is legal. --[[User:Morphi\|Morphi]] 22:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)