User talk:Alandenman

Phablet
Please provide a notable source for your edit that the term Phablet is informal.842U (talk) 00:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi 842U, I suggest if possible here on Wikipedia, and important to you, you should start a debate on 'informal'. I'd suggest it moves to being 'formal' when manufacturers start using it as well as 'us tablet owners' and 'them journalists'.


 * And whilst I was attracted to the 'phablet Wiki' by the '6.9"' in bringing this back to attention I see the following section as light vandalism, and could benefit from some of your good work.


 * "In a 2013 analysis, Engadget identified dropping screen prices, increasing screen power efficiency, increasing battery life and the evolving importance of multimedia viewing as critical factors in the popularity of the phablet.[1] In 2012, Forbes Magazine noted that while most clothing cannot hold a typical tablet computer, men's clothing in particular could and may well adapt to accommodate phablets.[12] Doug Conklyn, vice president of global design for Dockers told FoxNews.com said the company reworked the size of its pants pockets to accommodate the growing size of smartphones.[13]"


 * This mainly looks is an irrelevance and maybe should be tackled and removed. I'd consider the Engadget bit 'click bait' journalism that could be applied to any gadget, whilst the foxnews bit is, in both marketing spam and vandalism.
 * The Forbes bit is also very naive to say the least, considering cargo_pants do not need to adapt, it is clothing purchasing habits that are changing for both men and women.


 * regards


 * Alan Denman


 * No debates necessary. If you want to change the definition of what makes a phablet, then find a notable source that gives a bona fide definition.  The article isn't a place to conjecture or introduce the opinion of the editor, that's original research and is not allowed.  Note that the article itself cites dozens of sources that refer to the devices as Phablets, including the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times -- without any qualifier, including "formal" or "informal".  If you'd like, you can continue the discussion on the article's talk page. 842U (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please continue your discussion on the article's talk page; other editors will be able to participate and track the discussion.842U (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It is far better to reach a consensus than impose a dubious decsription of a word. We are the authors of wikipedia. I'm afraid references to journlism are can in fact degrade the quality far below what is expected of Wikipedia. An article can quote anything it wants but it does not stop it being of low qualty. Yes.I have discoevred the talk page so will move this conversation and my other remark over.

Seriously the whole wikipedia phablet defiintion as it currently is, is very low quality.

edit -Seems most online dictionaries acknowlged it is a tablet than also operates as a phone. Even Macworld references the 13th March phablet wiki in light ridicule. http://www.macworld.co.uk/ipad-iphone/news/?newsid=3434851 And even they reference '5" and above.'

I checked 13th March when the Mac journalist must have check the Wiki. Apart from the initial jesting it actually made more sense !

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)