Talk:List of computer system manufacturers/Archive 1

Archive 1

Is there a "List of Food Companies" out there somewhere, too?

I'm occasionally tempted to add companies to this list, but it then seems like I'd be contributing to a task about as worthwhile and achievable as removing all the dark grains of sand from a beach.

Is there a belief that this list could ever be comprehensive and up-to-date? I just did a quick Google for "computer manufacturers consortium" and picked one fairly obscure site that listed 450 members. That's only one site. This page currently lists 21 companies.

Some edits removed companies without wikipedia entries. If the goal is to only list computer manufacturers with wikipedia pages, wouldn't this be better handled by a category instead of an article?--NapoliRoma 20:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

and again: what is the purpose of this page?

I just reverted a redlink purge, since if a criterion for inclusion in this list is that there be an associated Wikipedia article, this page could just as easily be replaced by a category. As I noted on the rv comment, "redlink" does not equal "non-notable".

The reason to leave redlinks in place is to act as a stimulus to get associated pages going. If you kill redlinks on sight, you lose this stimulus. There are several companies (Egenera comes to mind) that definitely are notable to my mind (not that I'm rushing to create an article, but...:-)

A reason given for the purge was to avoid the list becoming "full of spam." It's supposed to be a list of manufacturers -- under what circumstance would the inclusion of another manufacturer to the list be considered spam? It's presumably why the list exists in the first place.--NapoliRoma 20:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Redlinks as such is no indication of notability, but according to WP:LISTS, all content must be verifiable, also including lists. Inclusion on the list should be based on what reliable sources say[1], and as such, many of the entries should be removed, as they only consist of a redlink and an external link. Also, according to the notability policy, section 4, clearly states that list articles, though, should include only notable entries; for example, only notable writers should be in List of English writers. As I interpret this, only entries already having articles should be included, otherwise the entries have to assert the notability by itself, which is also why I removed the redlinks. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 20:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

My first thought was that any computer system manufacturer is going to qualify as "notable" enough to be on this list (it's a little harder to claim to be a manufacturer than to claim to be a writer), but upon reflection I realized it's true there could be two guys, a garage and a website, which might not necessarily qualify as notable (yet -- rumor has it two guys and a garage can sometimes wind up building a notable computer company).

I still would expect a computer manufacturer to be notable until proven not -- but maybe there should be a threshold of a minimum revenue for at least one year? (There are some companies on the list that currently have zero revenue, but are still of note).

My current thought then is that it makes sense to cull the list, but only selectively, and I would recommend commenting those out rather than removing them entirely, to reduce the likelihood that someone would unknowingly reinstate them at a later time:

<!-- NOT NOTABLE * [[Sirius Cybernetics Company]] [http://plasticpals.com] ->

--NapoliRoma 00:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That is one option, but as the list guidelines state that all lists should have some sort of inclusion criteria, I would suggest that we create one. Revenue is one option, but I think I personally would go for the general criteria; A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject and each other. This should exclude all minor manufacturers, while keeping two guys working in a garage, as well as notable manufacturers in general. As for entries without existing articles here on Wikipedia, a source should be provided to prove that the entry is notable. Commenting out the entries like you have suggested is also a good idea, at least as long as the list doesn't get too overpopulated with non-notable entries. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 00:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

As there hasn't been any response on my last post, I'm going to add a inclusion criteria stating that only notable entries are to be added; and that all entries either need to have an existing Wikipedia article, or a source that indicates notability according to WP:CORP. Entries not notable will be commented out as NapoliRoma showed earlier. I'll give any interested parties time to comment on this, so I won't touch it for a few days. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 13:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What happened to Entries not notable will be commented out?--NapoliRoma 20:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot this when I removed a bulk of the entries. Commented out the last two after seing this however. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 01:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not make a less-than notable section

I find this information very usefull in my line of work. I would like to see a more COMPLETE list of computer manufacturers

To determine inclusion (my shot at this)

• Company has produced or assembled a device that can run an Operating system (please argue on what a qualifieng OS is here :)
• Has the companies name attached to the product in some form
• Is designed for home or office consumers (no embedded devices that go into some other product)
• (supports a keyboard?)
• the device is not handheld
• 'White-Box' manufacturers (without their name on the product) may be included if they ship over 1,000 units —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apuma (talk • contribs) 00:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• I disagree. I suspect that a list according to those criterias would end up being an extremely long list consisting mostly of companies which are not, and for the most part will not be notable in the foreseeable future. Also, as far as I can remember the WP policy on inclusion says that listed entries also need to be notable in some form, which is the reason for why existing entries this list either require linking to an existing article, or an external source to indicate notability. Bjelleklang - talk 21:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

3rd largest company

The 3rd largest company seems to be shared by apple and acer (as of Sat 1 Aug 8:17:31 GMT). I don't know who really is, but i suppose if anybody does know, this would be very easy to fix. 79.75.116.117 (talk) 19:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

What about Gateway? I had heard that they were out of business, but I was in Best Buy yesterday and saw their laptop. Personnel assured me that Gateway is still being produced. It may now be Acer Gateway.(JM) Dec. 24,2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.160.28 (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Clean up

I have knocked down the list to its blue links and have added some major omissions which were huge corporations in their day. Further additions should either be blue links or have a satisfactory citation as support. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Mistake in Article

Mistake in Article about company "Dera" - it links to cities in pakistan, not to company ;)

and this article is great for students. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.80.50.93 (talk) 13:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Logos

Why are there logos next to certain brands? It seems like advertising, especially since the ones with logos are the "top" companies.

It appears awfully biased and unencyclopedic. IMagainstYOU (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• I have to agree. I am removing them. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

IBM: current or defunct

As far as I know IBM doesn't manufacture any computers anymore since they sold the server part to Lenovo (they already sold the laptop and ddesktop part to lenovo some time ago). --MrBurns (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Non-notable entries

According to the list description, this list is supposed to contain notable computer system manufacturers. That's usually interpreted as "has an article of its own". I wouldn't spend too much effort arguing against the inclusion of companies for which reliable sources are presented but no article has been written yet. Just a redlink and a flag, however, not only lack any indication of notability, there are even issues of verifiability. Thus I have once again removed the non-notable entries. Huon (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Advantech was commented out today

I did a Google News search on Advantech a couple of days ago, and it does indeed appear to be notable. Comments? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I commented the company out as per the discussion above. If a company is notable enough to be included, a source should be listed, and not just the company web site. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 10:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The system at which information are been formed has been controversial in so many ways, and am not interesting on who leads higher and do best, but all am concern with is the impact we make on all of our decision[from Abraham Nwocha]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrahamnwocha (talk • contribs) 08:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

This is list is a complete mess

There are several problems with this list:

1. The biggest is whether it even deserves to be in WP. IMHO it is completely arbitrary - where are the inclusion criteria?
2. It is littered with external links masquerading as references and these should be removed.
3. The links that are reliable sources should be formatted as such with proper <ref>....</ref> tags and a references section added with {{Reflist}}.

Se discussion above for inclusion criteria, as well as the following from the article:

The following is a list of notable computer system manufacturers.

Please do not add entries without proper sources to indicate notability, either in the form of an external link or by linking to that entry's Wikipedia article. Non-notable entries may remain commented out for further review. Bjelleklang - talk 22:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

How does an external link indicate notability - plenty of non-notable companies have websites? What is the definition of a "Computer system manufacturer"?  – ukexpat (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This goes under WP:RS. A link to a corporate website will not qualify as a reliable source, but a link to an external article could be. Bjelleklang - talk 16:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

How about adding actually owning a manufacturing plant to that list of criteria; because half of these companies don't own a manufacturing plant anywhere. That would include Apple, Dell, HP, and others. They haven't actually manufactured anything in years. They spec stuff out and out source to manufacturing to other companies; namely FoxConn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.150.184.160 (talk) 05:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

companies omitted from list

Add ZT Systems which made PCs until 2013. See https://ztsystems.com/support/

You need to add two companies:

varian data machines

ohio scientific

These can be located in Wikipedia already.

72.160.151.49 (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC) Glenn Williams (no training here as a Wikipedia editor)

Done. DigitalIceAge (talk) 01:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Fortune 32:16 https://randoc.wordpress.com/2016/06/05/fortune-systems/

This list is CRITICAL history.

Thanks. --2600:8806:2407:C100:9DBB:FF57:39B6:47DE (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It's interesting info, and would be valuable as a jumping-off point for finding reliable sources for the info. As it is, blogs are not considered reliable so it alone can't be a reference. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I have been wanting to write Fortune Systems' article for YEARS, but the amount of research needed to do the topic justice is... daunting, to say the least. Lots of messy board ousters, lawsuits, and prehistory with that one. Mark my words, it will get done one day. DigitalIceAge (talk) 04:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

DONE! DigitalIceAge (talk) 05:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)