Template talk:Infobox computing device

An edit broke several entries in the template
this edit broke several entries in the template. See the diff, the ones that haven't had the label# data# parameters changed are in problem, for example, CPU field overrides the earlier Power field. Can anyone with edit privileges fix that? Thank you. 1exec1 (talk) 11:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Sorry about that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Just my imagination or is the "GPU" field broken? I added the field in an article, but it resulted in nothing displayed. -Kai445 (talk) 06:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * See above. A user added a comment to an old section of the talk page where nobody could see it, and then added documentation as if the template had been updated. I've undone the changes to the doc: if there's a real need for new parameters then it should be discussed here rather than in a thread from 2010. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I left a message at your talk page too. -Kai445 (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to add "SoC" and "Chipset" fields
I think that it is a good idea to add both the SoC and Chipset fields. A System on Chip field is highly relevant as we move towards integrated devices that employ SoC's, as I don't feel that a Chipset field would do them justice (where you would more likely find a Northbridge/Southbridge or Unified chipset, not the SoC which has a CPU/GPU on it). Both would make for good additions. -Kai445 (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I've added  for now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I think it is a good addition. -Kai445 (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Missing memory_card
This box is used for tablets (see Nexus 7). The needed information is about removable storage (aka memory_card in Template:Infobox mobile phone), so please add this. Thank you. --Milan Kerslager (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 November 2012
Where it says connectivity under that I would like to add Bluetooth please

Google9999 (talk) 13:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Bluetooth would seem to come under the umbrella of "connectivity" so I'm not sure a separate field is warranted. In any case, please discuss this before using editprotected. Thanks &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Add new section
Please add discontinued please

SoC label
The label (label 16) for SoC is "System-on-chip used" at the moment. Please remove "used" so that it is compliant with the other labels. It looks awkward. Kapitaenk (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It should be just link directly to System on a chip, without dashes, Right? [I already changed another template (used in iPhone5s)]. Maybe the a could or should(?) be skipped but still don't point to a redirect, right? I was going to do this myself but this template is protected (should I be an administrator?). I would probably not anyway since I don't see how it works.. comp.arch (talk) 10:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

OS field
Is the OS field intended to reflect the OS the computer was sold with, the one the vendor supports, or all OSes the box is capable of running? I ask because many (most?) computers are sold with MS Windows, the vendor only supports MS Windows, but they are capable of running linux, various flavors of bsd, etc. I would lean toward only listing the OS the vendor supplies, otherwise it's a lengthy list, but then what about computers that are sold with no OS? Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * If it's unclear what a field is supposed to represent then than obvious answer would be to not list it in the infobox at all (because how is the reader then to know what the field means exactly?) I think the OS field would make sense for a smartphone, probably even for a MacBook, but not for any PC-compatible laptop. —Ruud 17:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Power connector
This template is used for a number of gaming consoles and other hand=held devices. These increasingly use one of a range of USB connector types for charging and perhaps syncing. Others are significant for not doing so. I've looked at a couple of our articles on Nintendo consoles, for example Nintendo DSi, and we don't seem to say anything about the charging connectors, or the fact that some at least are apparently proprietary variants on standard USB types. Are {para|power}] or connectivity meant for this purpose? If not, I suggest we add a parameter to this infobox, for such content. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Answered here. I've added this on DSi.  « Ryūkotsusei »  01:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Making the title field optional
In cases like iPhone 4S, do we really need the title listed so many times in one-inch of screen?  « Ryūkotsusei »  01:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

CPU vs SoC field for the actual chip
I just changed Surface 2 cpu field, that was only used, to include the Nvidia Tegra as ARM is just the core (or architecture). CPU could be used when it applies (and not the SoC). However I saw the SoC used for the Surface, should the CPU then also be used? And not mention manufacturer? Or should the fields be mutually exclusive? comp.arch (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Replace the above hack
Hi. This template is still using the esoteric above hack and suffering its consequences.

By now, however, the underlying infobox is supporting two image parameters. Here is the replacement code, which can be found in up-to-date infoboxes like infobox software and infobox OS.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. Please let me know of any problems &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It sure seems like we've broken the template atm. All the video game articles with images aren't showing their images. At least the one's with a "nowrap" line involved.-- Sexy Kick  15:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, you fixed it right as I put this here.-- Sexy Kick  15:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Webcams
I was able to convert Xbox Live Vision to use this template, with the exception of two missing fields: (1) platform and (2) resolution. any objections to adding these? Frietjes (talk) 00:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * just found EyeToy, Kinect, and PlayStation Eye which could use these fields as well. Frietjes (talk) 00:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. I am adding platform but as for resolution: We have graphics, display and camera; a resolution parameter cannot co-exist we these. Either one should override resolution or else resolution should override one; e.g. it should either conditionally say "Camera" or "Resolution" not both. The question is: which?


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 13:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. Actually, camera is working nicely on these. I'd say we stick with that.
 * Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * works for me. there are still a few extra parameters in EyeToy, but the rest look fine now. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Add memory_card field
Given that this template is used more on tablets in lieu of Infobox mobile phone (which does contain it), I think we could use a memory_card field in there too. It's a simple change. ViperSnake151  Talk  00:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. I have added memory card. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Request to move "Power" field to below "Connectivity" field
After looking at some articles, the power fields seems out of place to me. This is a request to move the "Power" field from its current location to below "Connectivity" field. • Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 04:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Yes, it was quite obviously out of context. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

"Generation" field
"Generation" field should not link to History of video games article. It makes no sense in Nexus 7 (2012 version) article for example as this is not really a game console. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.193.200.21 (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Different IP editor to above, but I came here to mention the exact issue! Could an admin consider un-linking "Generation"? There doesn't seem to be a suitable catch-all that would apply to all "information appliances", though perhaps Generation (disambiguation) might work? 80.189.57.106 (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong template hopefully this is the right one! 80.189.57.106 (talk) 13:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Looks like that link was introduced back in 2008 when the template was expanded/updated in this edit. I will delink it as it's blatantly incorrect here.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 00:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Template doc out-dated-ness
The template doc appears to be partially out of date. If I've read it correctly, there is mention of a cpuSpeed field, but attempting to use it did not produce any visible text. I also found a usage at New Nintendo 3DS of the "gpu" field, but it did not display. I updated it to "graphics" instead, which fixed it, but the documentation suggests "gpu" should have worked. -- ferret (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC on estimated sales figures
Watchers may be interested in Talk:Xbox One, which is discussing the use of official sales figures versus third-party estimates. One suggestion has been to add an estimated sales field to this template. -- ferret (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

"logo caption" parameter.
Shouldn't the parameter logo caption be titled logo_caption for consistency? -- User-duck (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Better name for "related" field?
Right now, the "related" field, if populated, puts out "Related articles" in the infobox. But the instructions suggest this is for sibling consoles (eg Nintendo Switch Lite to the Nintendo Switch, or Xbox One X to the Xbox One). I don't know if "sibling" would be understood by masses, but given we have "predecessor" and "successor", I would suggest we use "concurrent" instead. We'd also need to stress this should be consoles from the same family. The Wii or Wii U are not concurrent with the Nintendo DS line, as they are completely different console families.

Also to that end, I would suggest possibly a "family" field. We know, for example, the Xbox Series X is part of the Xbox 4th gen series, and more consoles are to come. I don't know if reusing the "related" field works here for that, whereas a "family" field that spits out "Console family" in the infobox would be good. --M asem (t) 02:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Add codename
Some devices, such as the Toshiba AC100 have a codename. It would be a good idea to add that parameter. The infobox "mobile phone" already has it. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Display size
The "display" parameter is usually used to specify the display's size. Nothing wrong with that; however, it's usually given as the screen diagonal, which is misleading due to different aspect ratios (not to mention that the area doesn't increase proportionally to the diagonal).

I would propose to extend the description of the display parameter accordingly, for example:

Specifications of included or supported display devices; e.g. screen area, or the resolutions that can be outputted.

Lifespan
This parameter is unclear in its instructions, and could be (and has been) read as implying a single number ("5 years") or a range ("1998–2004"). Can anyone explain why the phrasing Average expected lifespan is used? Is there a type of product that this template has in mind? Because for something like an iPad or a Gameboy Color, it doesn't make sense to talk about the average expected lifespan.

Seperately, it seems like we should not use the lifespan parameter if both the release date and discontinued parameters are filled. I could amend the TemplateData to instruct that, but I want to make sure I'm not missing anything first. — HTGS (talk) 10:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * This has been bothering me, too. Doesn't anyone know what the lifespan parameter was intended for? Martin IIIa (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I think we should have separate templates for computers
One of the reasons we use templates is to give semantic content to the article that is easily read and processed. If you add infobox video game to an article, you can be pretty sure it's about a video game. To make this work, the boxes should be relatively specific to the topic, you wouldn't use, say, infobox game, or infobox recreation.

Yet this template seems to be the only one for computers, that is, the machine as a whole. There's CPU and other hardware templates, but lumping the PDP-11 in the same semantic group as a Java smart terminal loses precisely the distinction we hope to add.

I would suggest several sub-templates; off the top of my head, mainframe computer, minicomputer, microcomputer seem obvious. Older categories like process control/realtime might also be worthwhile.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This template is being used for computers, such as the PDP-11 and the IBM System/360 Model 65, that don't seem to fit the definition of information appliances. So I agree with Maury - using that template seems inappropriate for those machines.
 * Furthermore, the PDP-11 is a family of computers, while the IBM System/360 Model 65 is a member of the IBM System/360 family of computers, so either the infobox for the PDP-11 family should be Template:Infobox CPU architecture, which is documented as a template for instruction set architectures, or we should have separate templates for computer/device families and individual models in that family. I'm not sure that an instruction set architecture is all there is to a computer/device family, so I might vote for the latter. Guy Harris (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: this is also being discussed at . Guy Harris (talk) 19:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I was just about to propose this very subject to this Talk page—eerie. Anyway I totally agree with you that there should be an Infobox computer, if not more separated by categories like mini-, micro-, mainframe, portable, etc. In fact, there a  that got merged into this infobox back in 2008, even though it seems the user who merged it actually intended to merge  into  because he dislikes the term "information appliance" (so do I). Even if it's a valid term, it only defines a small subset of computers ever made. DigitalIceAge (talk) 03:01, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

OK, so there seems to be some agreement here, and it also appears the original merge may have been hasty and in the wrong direction! So, having rarely been involved in this sort of thing before, what's the process now? I have admin, so I could un-delete the infobox computer to get things rolling, but I suspect some more discussion on what it might contain would be useful? For instance:


 * 1) "personal computer", "home computer", "microcomputer" - are these different or the same? I don't think of a Mac as a "microcomputer", for me it's a "personal computer". But I'm not sure that's a real distinction, nor just a north American bias?
 * 2) is a "portable computer" different than a micro? is an ipad a portable computer or something else like "tablet computer"?
 * 3) I also think we need "computer terminal". But does a DECwriter fall into that, computer printer, or something else?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Coming at this from the video game side (where our consoles use the information appliance template), I would suggest the separation makes sense, drawing the line between for devices that are meant as closed systems with little to no post-purchase allowance for internal modifications by users (information appliances) versus closed or open systems that can be expanded by users (computers). And here, this is where I would keep tablets in as information devices as they are generally closed, non-upgradable systems. The "computer" distinction should focus on the potential capacity, rather than the base configuration that an info. appliance is typically shipped as.
 * To the question of types of systems, I don't think you need to separate as far down as, say, personal vs portable vs laptop (that can be a parameter distinction, not one you need a separate template for). I think you want to consider the major high-level architecture differences that will likely necessitate different parameters - a mainframe server computer will have different key features to identify it from a personal computer. --M asem  (t) 16:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Presumably by "internal modifications" you're not referring to third-party applications; as far as I know, both Android tablets and iPadOS tablets allow developers to write them. It sounds as if you're referring to hardware modifications, such as new peripherals, although the machine on which I'm typing this is generally regarded as a "computer" but I can't make internal modifications, I can just plug in Thunderbolt or USB peripherals.  Such a device is generally called a "notebook" or "laptop" computer. Guy Harris (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I am surprised to learn that consoles also use this template. Note only is the "console" a seemingly very well-defined term, the template items seem far from ideal for those cases. It does fit the definition of a single-purpose system, but again, that seems like far too wide a net to cast given the value of the semantic knowledge we can add. But I also agree the parameter is likely the way to subclass at the bottom. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I meant hardware modifications as "internal modifications", such as adding a graphics card, RAM, or hard drive. (And this is beyond "simple" removable media like a microHD slot or similar). Whether that's done at the point of sale or by the customer, that it can be done per unit (ala Dell configuration screens), compared to a closed system where you simply can't. But that's just a possible point to make a distinction from. What you do software wise, that shouldn't come into play.
 * We've used the information appliance becuase it captures all we need for consoles for the most part, and for video game systems we have few named "computer" systems though with a product like Steam Deck coming soon it would be nice to distinguish too. But as long as this split doesn't touch the current informational appliance template, you shouldn't have to worry too much about video game consoles. And to go to your notebook/laptop idea, while post-sale you usually can't modify it too much, it is one those things that you can have multiple configurations of internal hardware at the point of sale off the same model; again, when shopping for a Dell laptop, even once you've selected the model number (which is what a Wikipedia page would be about), you have multiple options for memory, HD type and space, and other on-board options (excluding peripherals) which to me would put it into the ability to have internal modifications area and thus a "computer" rather than an "internet appliance". Maybe that might be a bit too odd of a way to distinguish it but you definitely want some line that's reasonably black and white to distinguish between these two options. But this is all brainstorming and food for thought. --M asem (t) 00:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So what hardware must be configurable at purchase time, even if not after the purchase, in order for a device to be a "computer" rather than an "information appliance"? If secondary storage is sufficient, then the iPad mini, the boring old undecorated iPad, the iPad Air, and the iPad Pro models all qualify as computers.
 * And why should what you do software-wise not come into play? The information appliance page says that "An information appliance (IA) is an appliance that is designed to easily perform a specific electronic function such as playing music, photography, or editing text.", but iPads, at lest, not only can do all three of those, they can also edit spreadsheets and presentations (in Office Mobile for iOS or in Numbers and Keynote.  Sounds more like a computer to me, although they're not yet fully "self-hosting". Guy Harris (talk) 01:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so now we seem to have some ideals gelling. What is the next step? Do I simply make the new template pages and start using them? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Template:Infobox Computer and Template:Infobox computer were merged with this template in 2008 by &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And that can be undone. All I see in the talk page for this template that might concern this that merge is, from March-July 2008, in which Chris Cunningham, d/b/a , says first
 * "This is really just an uglier duplicate of infobox computer, so I'm going to work on merging them."


 * and then, in response to Jw's suggestion
 * "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..."


 * responds
 * ""information appliance" is a horrible, contrived term and the other infobox is much more widely used. ... Merging the other way makes more sense."


 * So I'm not sure why he merged Template:Infobox computer into this templates other than the other way. Template talk:Infobox computer doesn't exist, and I see nothing in Template talk:Infobox Computer to indicate why the merge was done that way.
 * User:Thumperward appears, from his contributions page, to still be active on the English-language Wikipedia, so:
 * What say you on this question? And why did you merge in the direction opposite to the one you advocated in March 2008?Guy Harris (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that request to justify a decision I made thirteen years ago is a joke, but given a second to think about it "information appliance", though it is clunky and invented, at least covers everything that this template does, whereas people would definitely find a way to argue that "computer" didn't even though everything here has a computer in its brain.

I'm not seeing the actual concrete rationale for a split. "These things should not all be lumped together" is not an argument unless it explains what problems that causes. The attributes shared by a PDP-11 and a Java smart terminal (and a ZX Spectrum, and an Xbox 360) are far more numerous than those in which they substantially diverge. In general I'm also reflexively opposed to the "video games are different" argument because it's just another way for WP:VG to silo off from the rest of the encyclopedia (something which has been troublesome for coming up on two decades).

If there is a need for sub-templates for specific areas, then infobox has supported this through  for years (see documentation). That's the only approach to template divergence that is remotely desirable here.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "I'm going to assume that request to justify a decision I made thirteen years ago is a joke" No, it's a response to "infobox computer was merged here in 2008" plus "the person who did that merge said, before merging it here, that this page should be merged into infobox computer, not the other way around", in order to get a reason why "infobox computer was merged here in 2008" argues against not having separate templates for different types of devices.
 * The original argument given here was that different templates are used "to give semantic content to the article that is easily read and processed". Presumably the "reader" here is an editor, as the use of this template in IBM System/360 Model 30 doesn't particularly indicate that the System/360 Model 30 is an "information appliance" (which it isn't, in the sense of an information appliance - then again, neither is a smartphone, but I digress...).
 * Sub-templates were also proposed there. Guy Harris (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The reason I assumed it was a joke it because assuming that I could recall the specific rationale of a trivial discussion on Wikipedia after all that time is ludicrous. Please keep that in mind if considering asking other editors about decisions they made over a dozen years ago.
 * If the entire rationale here is people having conniptions about some device they care about not having a template called "computer" on it then just take it to TfD and get it renamed. The name of a template is the absolutely least important aspect of its use. Forking it to create a different template with the preferred name is the worst possible option and shouldn't even be countenanced.
 * Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The article on information appliance is quite specific about the type of machines it encompasses, yet this tag is being used on a much wider group of articles than anything remotely covered by the term. An IBM 360/65 is not an "information appliance", nor is a Mac SE, yet both of these use that infobox.

But a much more important point is that the infoboxes are used to provide semantic information to parsers. A page with a radar infobox is probably about radar, and a page with a video game infobox is likely about a video game. But "information appliance" could be practically anything.

I guess one could argue that using a single tag is fine as many of the fields are similar, so we might have a "type" field in infobox for "mainframe" or "laptop". But at that point one could reduce that to say we should have only one sort of infobox for all articles and use the same field to define "radar" vs. "laptop". I don't think anyone would argue that is the rightly level of detail, yet that is what is happening here with the too-broad use of this one tag.

As to the forking... can you tell us why? The wording of your post suggests that it has something to do with the process itself, but I'm not clear if that is what you're trying to say. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok, having read many materials on infoboxes and trying my hand at some edits, I propose:


 * 1) A total of three inboxes, "computer", "video game console" and the existing "information appliance".
 * 2) "computer" would be used for all general-purpose computer-like devices. Yes, the IBM s360 and Mac would be in the same group, but they would have a different type=Mainframe vs. type=Personal computer (and =laptop, =tablet, etc.). This overrides my earlier concept of having different types of boxes, as it does indeed seem to be too fine a division.
 * 3) "video game console" would be largely identical to the current information appliance template, which is already pretty customized to consoles - items like "top game" and various controller-related items really have no use anywhere else.
 * 4) "information appliance" would then be left as-is for backward compatibility as well as for those machines that really are in this group (which seems very very small). We may consider expanding this group to include computer terminals?

Slings and arrows please! Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I dig the idea of having a separate video game console infobox. Like you said, that way we wouldn't have thematically inappropriate or ambiguous parameters like "Best-selling video game", "(Game) controller" and "Online service" when describing, say, a web server. Plus the way the infobox sets up the purpose of the "Generation" parameter doesn't really jive with how the video game world defines "generations" of consoles, instead lumping whole devices into "eras" (e.g. the Game Boy Color is Nintendo's second generation of Game Boy but a "fifth-generation era" console). Though I sympathize with Thumperward's concern that such an infobox would further let WP:VG further cordon themselves from the rest of the project, I just think that the use of this template is too broad at this point. Totally fine with it remaining on terminals, smartphones, tablets and PDAs. I'm also still on board with a separate Infobox computer for general-purpose computers and like what you've got so far done in your sandbox Maury. DigitalIceAge (talk) 08:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * That there are no WikiProject-specific forks already prevents such trivia from being included in infoboxes. That is largely the point. I'm still waiting for anyone to propose parameters which would genuinely justify a full fork, as opposed to the child-template solution that has existed for years.
 * : so fix the template documentation. This would have taken you five minutes. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry Chris, but I am having difficultly understanding what you propose I fix on the documentation page. I'm also not clear how changing the documentation page will aid automated software incorrectly categorizing the varied systems that the template finds itself on. As you imply this is something simple, perhaps you could describe, no matter how briefly, what types of changes you are suggesting? Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Replacing all occurrences of the word "appliance" in the parameter descriptions with "device" might be a good start. Replacing the word "appliance" in the template title with "device", or replacing the entire title with "Infobox computing device" or something lacking the "appliance" term", might be the next step.
 * Presumably the automated software categorizing pages based on the infobox templates reads the MediaWiki markup source, not the generated HTML, unless it happens to find the set of templates buried in some statistics in a Javascript blob in the generated page. Guy Harris (talk) 22:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * If the sole argument here is that a PDP-11 and a Game Boy aren't "information appliances" then just request the template title be changed. From what little I remember of the history, this was a messy least-worst choice because people disagreed that not everything covered was a "computer" either, but infobox computing device would be fine with me. I must stress again that there is absolutely no implication that putting this template on an article labels the subject as an "information appliance" as that Wikipedia article defines it and that ultimately this is a non-issue. What would be an issue is forking it when it demonstrably works perfectly well for all of the purposes to which it is currently applied, name notwithstanding. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Renaming everyone? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Infobox computing device is a happy medium—it gets my 👍. DigitalIceAge (talk) 06:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @DigitalIceAge @Maury Markowitz This is something that still has to be done, right? Is there something blocking? PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

So we can either just do it, or we could put something on Requested moves and see what people say. Guy Harris (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

✅, Category:Pages using Infobox information appliance with unknown parameters awaiting a speedy rename. Janhrach (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

✅ Janhrach (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Developer
Currently this infobox has an entry called 'developer'. Is this supposed to be a company name or a person? That is not documented. I would also like to have a 'designer' field, which might be made by renaming this, because I think there is considerable overlap between a 'developer' and a 'manufacturer'. I think that the person who made a design style for a computer is not really a 'developer'. PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

marketing target?
is the parameter marketing target valid or not? — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 18:50, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Alias for, fixed — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 11:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Adding QPU?
Quantum Processing Unit? AggressiveC (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2023 (UTC)


 * (for quantum computers, of course). AggressiveC (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2023 (UTC)