Trevor coelho

ThinkPad X Series Laptops and Tablets

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, Trevor coelho. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 May 31.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Chzz ► 04:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Welcome and introduction

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hi, Trevor coelho. This is NOT some automated message...it's from a real person. You can talk to me right now. Welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed you've just joined, and wanted to give you a few tips to get you started. If you have any questions, please talk to us. The tips below should help you to get started. Best of luck! Chzz ► 04:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

ようこそ

You don't need to read anything - anybody can edit; just go to an article and edit it. Be Bold, but please don't put silly stuff in - it will be removed very quickly, and will annoy people.

Ask for help. Talk to us live, or edit this page, put {{helpme}} and describe what help you need. Someone will reply very quickly - usually within a few minutes.

Play in your user area. For example, create User:Trevor coelho/test.

Edit existing articles, before you make your own. Look at some subjects that you know about, and see if you can make them a bit better. For example, Wikipedia:Cleanup.

When you're ready, read about Your first article. It should be about something well-known, and it will need references.

Good luck with editing; please drop me a line some time on my own talk page.

There's lots of information below. Once again, welcome to the fantastic world of Wikipedia!

-- Chzz ► 04:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Grade sources • Cite sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists • Best articles Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Pages needing attention • Peer review The missing manual

Thanks for the Feedback

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

You have new messages

Hello, Trevor coelho. You have new messages at Chzz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{user:chzz/tb}} template. File:Ico specie.png

Chzz ► 11:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'll indicate on your talk page when I'm done - yep, fine, no worries. Or ask for help, any time. I've archived that message, User talk:Chzz/Archive 32#Thanks for the Feedback (archives at top of my talk page).

The best way to contact Chzz is IRC (text-chat), here · Second-best is my talk page · Third-best is email Chzz

live.co.uk

Chzz ► 09:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

More feedback

Latest comment: 13 years ago15 comments2 people in discussion

A suggestion: slow down on creating new articles for a while until some issues with existing ones can be worked on. For example, WP:REFPUNCT shows how references go after punctuation, not before. And Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news site or buying guide. Never say "currently" or "now" nor offer any opinion. Take alook at the advertising policy for example. Also a single link to a web site is generally enough; linking to specific pages often leads to link rot. Thanks. for your patience. W Nowicki (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Nowicki,

Thanks for the feedback. A question about the link rot: if I don't link to specific pages, won't that be a problem for verification? For example, if I link to the Lenovo main web site as opposed to a subpage about a product, the information I'm referencing won't be on that page. Is that likely to cause a problem?

Trevor coelho (talk) 06:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Another question, Nowicki - I've avoided including any personal opinions in the pages I created ( T Series for example). Is there anything in there that sounds like an opinion?

I've put reviews about products in a section at the bottom of the page, but if there's anything else that doesn't fit Wikipedia's policies, please let me know and I'll tweak it or remove it as necessary. Thanks again.

Trevor coelho (talk) 06:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well yes the ThinkPad T Series Laptops article as User:Chzz pointed out, probably has too many citations and quotes. Just repeating a web review adds no value; paraphrase and summarize. The other related articles still do have some uncited opinion. Also do not link to an https url when the http works just as fine without logging in.

Here is a good guideline for detail: Wikipedia just had its tenth anniversery. Try to put yourself in the shoes of readers ten years from now. What level of detail will they find valuable? For example, would you find value in a list of specific details of a product as of 2001, or a general overview that put it in context? Do you have any pictures of any of these? Probably the kids in 2021 might get a good chuckle out of what people thought was "portable" way back in 2011. The product listings need to be trimmed; and we do not use the copyright symbols, since Wikipedia is not commercial. The 2021 readers probably would not care so much about exact details from one day in the distant past.

If you cite ten links to pages that all go dead, it is no better than one that goes dead. On the other hand, if you fill in the title, date, publisher, etc. then there is a better chance a search will find that page, and from there navigate to sub pages. One issue in ThinkPad T Series are the individual product links under "External links". They weill be guaranteed to be out of date when Lenovo moves to the next generation of models. I fixed this in ThinkPad Edge yesterday, and can do the same thing and give you more examples. I moved the article as discussed in the talk page. We do not ened to qualify brand names with the kind of products they name. For example, see Canon T series, Suzuki T series etc. not "Canon T series cameras" nor "Suzuki T series motorcycles". Plenty more work you can do on these, thanks. W Nowicki (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Just realized the ThinkPad Edge is a redirect to the main ThinkPad article! The right one is filed under Thinkpad Edge which does not seem to match the way it was really spelled. I do not have power to fix this, but will request help. W Nowicki (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Nowicki. I have another question, with regard to the future-proofing of the article. I agree with the fact that I'll need to think about what people will find interesting ten years from now - in keeping with that, what sort of a page structure (and associated content) would work for a topic like laptops?

For example, in the section about the history, would something like specifications of models over the years be useful? Taking myself as an example: I like seeing how PC hardware evolves with each new model released, and seeing specifications helps - hence the inclusion in the history for the pages I wrote. I applied the same logic to the features and reviews section. Does that work, or is the detail too much?

I'd like to know what your thoughts on the page structure are, and whether I can retain it. This will help me understand whether the article itself needs to be reorganized or just trimmed in terms of the level of detail.

Trevor coelho (talk) 09:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well my personal taste is that the "History" part (perhaps with the reviews woven in) will be the only interesting part in the long run. You might then just break up the History section into subsections on each major update to the series, perhaps by year. The "features" sections are just cut-n-paste from the marketing docs, so those need to be deleted. Even the spec tables probably need to go, or at least be summarized. The general ThinkPad article for example has big sections on the 2008 models that are now obsolete, and need to be merged into each series' article, with just a short summary in the parent article.

Other details: you can drop the "X Series" from the section headings in User:Trevor coelho/ThinkPad X Series Laptops and Tablets since the entire article is about the X Series. The lead section needs to be in complete sentences giving context. There need to be Wikilinks for major topics in the body the first time they are used, especially if industry jargon. You should create at least a minimalist user page, if nothing else to state if you have any connection to this topic and therefore any conflict of interest.

Finally, it make sense to have a Lenovo navigation template to make clear all the articles about the product and company. See for example {{IBM}} I can help with that, probably in a few days. Thanks for sticking with it. W Nowicki (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that, Nowicki. The point about the History is a good idea, and I'll knock off the features and the specs. For the specs, alternatively, I can put them in the History, listing the 2011 models. I can do the same for the reviews, I think. I've already removed the section headings, and I'll put in the Wikilinks too.

One thing I didn't understand was the Conflict of Interest bit. How will creating a user page help with that? I read the Wiki guideline for WP:COI, but I'm not quite sure what declaration I need to make. I don't have a conflict of interest as the page states it - as a PC gamer I'm just interested in the topic itself, since PCs have always been an area of interest. That was the idea for the articles. Should I create a user page and mention that there?

Trevor coelho (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sure, yes, user pages use the same wiki markup format but the content rules are generally looser. You are allowed to do a full autobiography on your user page (but not in the encyclopedic space) or remain a mystery. It is typical to give a short summary of your interests. Maybe even your part of the world or timezone, which might help a bit with interacting with other editors. A COI example: the official archivist of IBM sometimes helps on Wikipedia. He discloses this in his user page, and is careful to have changes to the IBM-related articles reviewed, but is helpful getting, for example, pictures of historical machines and people. My COI is being a computer user for over 40 years, and my father-in-law got IBM into the computer business in 1949. The problem would be if someone suspected you of being an employee or distributor of Lenovo, for example. Of course user pages do not "prove" anything but keeping one missing might lead to speculation.

As for the features and specs, the general rule is to summarize the high points. This takes a bit of thinking, but just cut-n-paste of the bullets could be considered a copyright violation or advertising so discouraged. And generally wikilink all acronyms the first time you use them, or spell them out too. Those "well known" today could go the way of VHS or other technologies and not be meaningful to a reader in the future, or one not up on the jargon. Thanks. W Nowicki (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I went ahead and created a {{Lenovo}} template, which you should add to your article. At least it has survived so far! W Nowicki (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a ton for that, Nowicki. I've been trying to figure out how to do that myself. I'm reworking the X Series article for structure and to make it future proof. As soon as I update the article, I'll put the template in.

Trevor coelho (talk) 12:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

OK, the past tense is better, but there are still some issues. You need a lead section that summarizes what the subject is in context. Right now you just have the title sitting by itself instead of in a sentence. See ThinkPad T Series for example. I still prefer a narrative in chronological order instead of backwards order. Again think of someone reading this ten years from now who never heard of the product. Someone looking to buy can go directly to a commercial site. That is taste a bit, but right now you mislead readers into thinking IBM introduced them in 2011 since you do not say when. You removed the quotes, but also the titles from the references, so they are all just bare urls. That is even worse for link rot. You need at least titles, and prefer dates, accessdates, and "work=" to indicate who is making the statement (e.g. self-sourced or independent). We do prefer prose sentences instead of bullets. Just copying from spec sheets adds no value. At the least put the bullets in each years' section in-line. e.g. In 2010 Lenovo introduced models X100e, X201, X201s, and the X201 Tablet. Says the same thing in less space (in active voice too).

I also disagree with the change to {{Lenovo}}. Telling readers that a group of articles called "ThinkCentre" has an article line called "ThinkCentre" in it conveys no information whatsoever. What is it? Some of the lines mix laptops with other form factors, so perhaps splitting into "Desktop" and "other" might makes sense, so I will do that. But otherwise it seems redundant and wasteful. Especially if someone is browsing the article on a smart phone for example, every bit of screen area matters and should convey information instead of just take up space. And why hide the Lenovo 3000 and Lenovo Skylight? If they are not notable then let's delete the article instead of hiding it. W Nowicki (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Nowicki,

Is there any guideline for specs? I was using paragraphs earlier, but the information seemed extremely dense. Bullets appeared clearer on the page, hence their inclusion.

Also, for the template, the exclusion of Lenovo 3000 and Skylight was an oversight. I didn't realize they weren't there until you mentioned it. The purpose of changing the template was to allow for room for the other pages I'm working on - IdeaPad, ThinkCentre, and IdeaCentre. Categorizing by product line makes it easier for people to find what they're looking for.

Let me know your thoughts on this.

Trevor coelho (talk) 05:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

No, my thoughts are above and one the template talk page. Telling me that a group of articles called "ThinkCentre" has one article in it called ThinkCentre provides no information whatsoever! Is it a desktop computer or a floor wax? Sounds like maybe a yoga school. Remember people are reading articles because they do not know the subject; that is why they are reading. In no way does it make it "easier for people to find what they're looking for" because readers like me have no clue what the marketing buzzwords mean. Space in a navigation template is at a premium; you can always break up the groups later as more articles are written. Navigation templates are meant to put articles in context with other ones, not be just another list of product names.

Also, I'd appreciate it if you could check out the Dell Inspiron page and let me know if that's a good model to use as a base. Structurally, Dell uses model lists with bullets for specs. Other pages that I checked (Acer and Compaq) don't really talk about specs - they just list product models in a bulleted list. Thanks.

Trevor coelho (talk) 05:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well I said it was somewhat personal taste. The Dell Inspiron article is assessed as "list" class. I do not find simple product lists useful since they are not encyclopedic and almost guaranteed to get out of date. An example of a prose article I have done on a notable computer is IBM SSEC although this was of course a very different beast. The other important guideline is WP:DIRECTORY, Wikipedia is not just a directory. Other sites like Yahoo or Google do that. Also see "Excessive listing of statistics" later on that article. My guess is that many of the simple lists of models (certainly stand-alone articles on individual models) will be deleted in a year or two due to failing Wikipedia:Notability guidelines.

I also think bold face is overused, but the Inspiron article does that too. Dell Studio looks a bit cleaner to my eyes, but has the evil raw urls. Dell XPS only has the specs in non-prose for one discontinued model. Seem to be all over the place, none a paragon of quality. MacBook Pro might be a better example, it is rated "good" and has mostly prose and a couple big tables. See this link for the list of "Good" hardware articles (alas, not many). So I would suggest fixing the other issues like the lead section and adding titles back in. Then move to article space and continue work there, or do a "breadth first" approach and do other missing articles. Wikipedia is never done. W Nowicki (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Help with the ThinkPad X Series page

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I recently moved the ThinkPad X Series page from my userspace draft to live Wikipedia (perhaps half an hour ago). When I search on Google "thinkpad x series wikipedia", the page shows up in the Google list with the redirect from my user page. Is there any way to remove the redirect so my name doesn't appear when the page is searched for? Trevor coelho (talk) 06:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Google will have to re-index the page. until they do that, google will still link to the old page --^Gavin _Perch talk 06:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that, Gavin. I appreciate the quick response.

Trevor coelho (talk) 06:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Help with Feedback

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

You have new messages

Hello, Trevor coelho. You have new messages at Chzz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{user:chzz/tb}} template. File:Ico specie.png

Chzz ► 07:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I hope you won't mind, but I've now archived that section - you can see it in User talk:Chzz/Archive 32#Help with Feedback. Sorry for any inconvenience, but my talk page can get very busy; feel free to ask any further questions by starting a new section on my talk (but don't edit the archive), thanks, Chzz ► 06:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Your message at Requests for feedback

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

	Hello Trevor coelho. Replies have been posted to your message at Requests for feedback. Please acknowledge the feedback and ask for additional assistance if you need it. If you do not respond to the feedback, your message and the replies thereto will be archived in a few days. Thank you! Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 15:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
	You can remove this notice at any time - click on this section's [edit] link and remove the section.

Your submission at Articles for creation

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

ThinkPad Tablet, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping Wikipedia!

Chzz ► 04:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Fast enough for you? :-) Chzz ► 05:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Much faster than I expected. :) I was planning on adding more content to the page over the next couple of days. :) Thanks very much, Chzz.

Trevor coelho (talk) 04:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I just happened to notice it pop up, and remembered your name :-) It's fine to improve it of course, but it was good enough to go live. Cheers, Chzz ► 04:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Your submission at Articles for creation

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

IdeaCentre K Series, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see what needs to be done to bring it to the next level.
Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping Wikipedia!

Hallows AG (talk) 00:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Reply