Talk:Dell/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Death of the Dimension Line

Someone should update the links and the Model listings to reflect the recent decision to end the Dimension Line of products. Dustice 19:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Dell's Formal and official name.

What is Dell's Formal and official name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.218.148.36 (talk) 13:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Dell Inc. - Rjd0060 15:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Workers worldwide

There is a mismatch in the data about total workers worldwide in this page. The first paragraph says that as of 2006, they had over 70,000 or so workers worldwide. In the box on the right of the screen, it says 90,000 or so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.98.207 (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Largest Manufacturer

If Dell overtook Compaq, how did HP take over Compaq three years later to regain the lead as the largest manufacturer of PCs? Is this correct? Salami swami 19:43, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

That's what I first thought when I read it, too. It's probably because I'm not a native speaker. What is meant though is that Dell took the lead from Compaq. So before Compaq had the titel as the largest manufacturer, then Dell did. (Since no one else wrote anything about this since 2004 I guess it's not necessary to edit this and just a problem for non-native speakers ;) 08:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.31.21 (talk)

Dell Partner Program - Conflict of Interest?

Check out the Dell Partner Program, written by one "ConnectU". It seems to be a fairly blatant case of self-promotion of the ConnectU company, which is cause for removal by the COI guidelines. If we're going to include the ConnectU reference, what is there to stop any other company from including their own? I'm in favor of leaving the section, but removing the ConnectU content. Any thoughts? Matt Gerber (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Info

The history section looks a bit messy, so I'm not sure where to put this info - or maybe it can go to the Kanata article.

"In April 2008, Dell announced the closure of one its biggest Canadian call centers in Kanata, Ontario causing the lost of jobs of about 1100 with 500 of those being effective immediately with the official closure scheduled during the Summer. The call center opened in 2006 after the city of Ottawa won a bid to host the call centre creating 1500 jobs in the region. The arrival Less then a year later, there were plans to double its workforce to near 3 000 and the addition of a new building. The rise of the Canadian dollar against the American currency to near parity as well as the high payroll compared to other centers around the world were reasons cited. The company had also announced the shut down of its Edmonton, Alberta office." [1] JForget 19:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that this belongs in the article. It is cited. Otherwise we're showing favourtism. GreenJoe 19:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Dell helping President Bush

This information is not relevant on the Dell Wikipedia page. It would be on the Michael Dell page. "In 2005, Susan and Michael Dell were among 53 entities that contributed the maximum of $250,000 to the second inauguration of President George W. Bush.[56] [57] [58]" Cestuila 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Is there any doubt as to where the $250,000 came from? The general public should be informed as to where some of the profits of the company are ending up. --Art Smart (talk) 14:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I've removed this. It's inappropriate for the company article as it's a personal contribution. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

And it's been added back in without discussion. this edit is inappropriate, and unless Arthur Smart can provide a rather better rationale than "the general public should be informed as to where some of the profits of the company are ending up" (as Wikipedia is not someone's gossip blog) it will be removed again. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it again, seeing as no stronger rationale was provided. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

*Agrees with Chris Cuningham* Cestuila 27 may 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 21:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a fact that Michael Dell, while in his capacity as Chairman of Dell's Board, donated the maximum possible to the Bush inaugural. He knew full well that such a donation would reflect upon the company he founded and whose Board he chaired. Why hide that fact? Self-disclosure: I would never have bought my Inspiron 9100 if I had known about Dell's contribution to Bush, and I wish this article had allowed me to make a more informed purchasing decision. I suggest all other editors likewise self-disclose any employment relationship and/or stock ownership that may affect their interests in Dell's contribution remaining in this article. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Your veiled implication that anyone arguing against you has a conflict of interest doesn't help you, but seeing as the donation was made in the capacity of the company I suppose it's appropriate. I've gone and changed your reference to one which, y'know, includes the word "Dell" in it. It'd be nice if you took the time to reword the section so that it presented the dontaion in a more appropriate way than as a "public service". I'm terribly sorry for your accidental funding of the re-election of George Bush. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No veiled implication intended. I always assume good faith unless/until otherwise proven that it's a misplaced assumption. Everyone should feel free to edit, even those with a conflict of interest. All I ask is some transparency if/when such a conflict exists, which I continue to request. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd support putting this in if reliable sources can be found discussing why it's notable. Otherwise, Wikipedia is not a list of facts, etc. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Here you can see that another editor removed two cited references which clearly show how this edit is relevant. USA Today points out that such contributors, like Dell's Chairman of the Board, were buying access to the president. (Quote from reference 5, with emphasis mine: "[C]orporate America has showered the inaugural organizing committee with money. It has given $25.5 million so far to help pay the costs of a week of parties, balls, receptions and other official functions. The money has come mostly in six-figure chunks from companies and their executives — nearly all of them with business before the government that affects their industries.") That makes it notable. Based upon your indication of conditional support, I'll add the clause back for your review and consideration, notwithstanding personal attacks from others. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You are making the argument that the Dell family gave money to the Bush administration to help Dell, Inc. based on two separate arguments: that Dell gave money to Bush, and that this was to help the company. Two of those sources do not mention Dell at all, and none of them make the case presented. This is synthesis of an argument, and is inappropriate. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. One of the two articles which you claim does not mention Dell does, in fact, have a related link that mentions Dell. Your edit to eliminate the referencing article left the Wikipedia reader with nothing but a list of entities without any background as to what makes them notable. That omission is perhaps what NeilN was objecting to when he wrote, "Wikipedia is not a list of facts." The referencing article clearly states "and their executives", which includes Michael Dell, in reference to Dell Inc. as one of the "companies ... nearly all of them with business before the government that affects their industries". The USA Today writer is noting the creation of a conflict of interest by Michael Dell on behalf of the company Dell Inc., among other such donors. This is not my synthesis, but rather that of USA Today in a verifiable, reliable source. --Art Smart (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Arthur, I've just performed a text search through the article "Donors get good seats, great access this week" for the string "Dell" and had no matches. The only mention of Dell is in another article, hyperlinked from there as "related links" - which points to the reference that I left in the article. So again - you are taking a list of donors (one article) which contains Michael Dell, taking a statement in another article that states in general terms that political donations from corporations are "soft money" which can be used as a favour, and inferring from it that Dell gave money to Bush's reelection for political reasons. This inference is perhaps appropriate for a gossip column, or a blog, but it is wholly inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Either a direct reference to the inferred statement should be found or it should be removed from the article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you not see the "Related link"? That obviously was USA Today's way of including the entire list of donors as incorporated by reference into the article in question. (Think of it as an "include" declaration in software coding.) Otherwise the article would have been much too long, that is, by explicitly listing the 53 donors in the article which talks about them. Let's just agree to disagree on this point, and give NeilN a chance to review the issue. I don't want to overwhelm him with redundant back and forth, and I hope that is not your goal either. Thanks again. --Art Smart (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Two points. 1) Why did the USA Today list have Michael Dell and his wife by name when the majority of entries list the company name? If it was a personal donation then the fact might be appropriate for Michael Dell but not here. 2) The edit, as it stood, read like a bit of trivia. If a case can be made to put it in here then the reader should be told why it's notable. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 12:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

NeilN, the first cited article states, "The money has come mostly in six-figure chunks from companies and their executives — nearly all of them with business before the government that affects their industries." The article implies that Michael Dell, as an executive of Dell Inc., made the contribution while Dell Inc. had business before the government. I'm not sure how to include that highly relevant fact within the article while keeping the article with a NPOV. Talking about Dell trying to buy influence (albeit legally) is hard to word neutrally. --Art Smart (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Instead, you try to imply this? Either state why reliable sources think the contribution is notable or just leave it out as on its own, it's just trivia. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Art, One can't just go around using synthesis to decide what a source intended to say, nor why it is relevant. I'm sorry but claiming that the editors "obviously intended" it to be an inclusion in the article, when they didn't include it, doesn't really fly. In any case, there is still a pretty big relevance issue. I, and it would appear none of the other editors here, have any objection over appearing on the article for Michael Dell, but it is absolutely not appropriate as encyclopedic content in this article. At its best it is trivial fluff. I ask that you respect the current consensus and leave the information out of the article. If you believe this does not reflect community consensus as a whole, you are free to use the various avenues open to you to gain a wider variety of input regarding the issue.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 17:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no notability here, nor is there precedent. The information discussed on companies is generally pertinent to the functioning or performance of the company. Unless something questionable happened due to this, its no more notable than any other donation made to any polititican, which is to say, not at all. There's obviously an agenda here, this asking for COI revelations is clearly just a way to accuse others of biased editing while appearing to maintian good faith assumptions.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 18:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Whining about jobs

There is a bit of a negative tone in this article that compromises its neutrality. It seems to focus mainly on dell terminating jobs or closing down facilities. I'll be making some changes to more neutral terms and tone, as the current phrasing was clearly crafted by someone who takes issue with their policies.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 15:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I changed some of the wording, replacing "loss" with more neutral terms referring to the termination of jobs. I also removed the reference to outsourcing to El Salvador as there isn't really much in the article referenced to substantiate that, especially since the article seems to be a bit of a biased source, given where the closed facility was.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 15:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I take exception to the heading of this section (i.e., "Whining about jobs"). In my opinion, such a characterization betrays massive insensitivity to good employees who suddenly and unexpectedly find themselves without a job through no fault of their own. Unlike nearly all other western nations, the U.S. stands alone with a total lack of universal health care. Loss of a job here usually also means loss of all health coverage. Even if/when another job is found, any pre-existing condition goes untreated or undertreated. Therefore, loss of a job can sometimes mean a death sentence for one or more members of the former employee's family. If that is considered "whining", then I proudly allow my conscience to be misconstrued as such. While I could change the heading to a more neutral one, I wish to give whomever originally placed it an opportunity to do so him/herself if so inclined. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Personal opinion is usually given more lee-way on talk pages. In this case, the user is rather justified in believing that the article has some problematic WP:WEIGHT issues, and should not be prevented from saying so because it offends the sensibilities of random talk page participants when such comments are made in good faith. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that no one should be "prevented" from saying anything offensive. I just wanted to voice how offensive such language is to me, and offer an opportunity to make the wording less offensive, if the editor is so inclined. --Art Smart (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I will not edit my wording for you, most likely one of the whiners. Based on my observations above you seem to have your own agenda here, and are just stirring the pot to get attention. Please address me if you have a legitimate concern.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 17:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, no personal attacks. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 18:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to stop being such a hypocrite, you accuse others of personal attacks and then edit the title of a section to make a veiled personal attack of your own(read WP:TALK why don't you).--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 18:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No personal attacks, please. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

In an edit summary you again have personally attacked me by calling me an "irritant". Please cease and desist such attacks. Also, as the father of three young children who consult Wikipedia regularly, I respectfully ask you to remove the F bomb from the DGAF userbox on your Talk page. While I fully realize that Wikipedia does not censor, most of us editors think that self-restraint might be appropriate. Your credibility might be enhanced both by ending the personal attacks and by removing the F bomb. Thanks again. --Art Smart (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Take this to user talk pages, please. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Tried that as a good faith assumption. Didn't work. That "user frequently does not give a f^#& and as such may respond to some comments with apathy." --Art Smart (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Something that I would like to see changed in this article is text that states "Dell suddenly closed down the facility at Roseburg, Oregon on August 2, 2007.[61] The facility had consisted of computer and electronics sales-agents (other call-centers absorbed these jobs)...". After the closing of the Roseburg, Oregon call-center only one other call center, which provides technical support for Nintendo, was lined up to absorb workers. They were only able to staff about a dozen former Dell employee's out of the several hundered misplaced, and not all of the jobs as the wording of the article could make one believe. Not only that but the Roseburg, Oregon facility housed Dell Technical Support and Dell Customer Service agents on top of the sales force.

For the El Salvador comments, they are a legitmate as many of the agents that trained the new El Salvador employee's came from the Roseburg, Oregon center, and upon returning home found themselves unemployed. I hope this information is taken into consideration as I experienced this first hand being one of the former Dell employee's from Roseburg, Oregon.12.177.80.3 (talk)Andrew A. —Preceding comment was added at 20:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

First hand experience doesn't mean much of anything when it comes to article details. It can not be cited, and it certainly isn't verifiable. The credentials for first hand experience are essentially "I am a person, and I saw this." For something to be included it needs to have a source: an independent, verifiable source with credentials.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 13:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't think it would be that hard to get ahold of the records indicating the number of people who were not able to find a job after the closing. Although I see a lot of information in the article that is easily verified but still remains wrong, such as the number of employee's. Even Dell's website shows they employ a smaller number of people than this article says. Using the same logic why would they put "other call-centers absorbed these jobs" if they didn't bother verifing that information? I suppose when/if the article is unlocked for editing this will be fixed. 12.177.80.3 (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I've removed the unsourced text. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

For reference to user from IP 12.177.80.3, the page is only edit protected to non autoconfirmed users (non-logged in aka IP address users, and new accounts less than 4 days and 10 edits old). This was to stop consistent IP vandalism. Creating an account to edit from will prevent that in the future.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 17:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that is good to know. I will have to create an account when I am at home. Thanks for the FYI 12.177.80.3 (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

95.000 employees?

Where exactly does that information come from??? Dell states having about 75.100 employees on its web site. If a source is not indicated for this by tomorrow I will change that information and add a footnote to it, something that also isn't there. Alessandro Malfatti (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

since it is now semiprotected, i cannot update it. the latest figure 88,200 at the end of FY 2008. source: Dell annual report http://www.secinfo.com/dsvrp.t5yp.htm (Doiwl (talk) 06:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC))

Forgive me if I'm just missing it but, where in that source does it use the number? I couldn't find it and I'd prefer not to cite the source until I've seen it in there.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 14:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found it. Firefox search feature wasn't picking anything up before and I'm lazy.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 14:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I also went ahead and grabbed the sec.gov version of the page for more reliable citeability, and I updated all the FY2008 data in the infobox as well--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 14:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

External Link

An editor keep inserting this link [2] into the article claiming it's the "#1 complaint site". Checking on Alexa [3] gives it a ranking of 277,000, barely measurable. According to WP:EL, links to "...social networking sites (such as MySpace), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists" should be avoided. Other opinions? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Stop removing the external link [4] I posted here. It is important to this article and it is a legitimate external site completely related to Dell. People have a right to know both the good and the bad about Dell and make up their minds for themselves. Furthermore, a external website's ranking is irrelevant and besides, Alexa does give accurate rankings and the external link I posted is not a . "...social networking sites (such as MySpace), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists". Probably the real reason you keep removing it is because you are either a Dell employee or are affiliated with Dell in some way. I'm not going to waste my time anymore arguing with you about this. Stop your censuring and let it be! --LedAstray (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That link directly leads to a forum. What part of "chat or discussion forums/groups" is unclear? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 15:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It's removed because it's designed to push an opinion on the article. It's also treated as spammy by the way you were introducing it (e.g. stating that it was #1 - which makes the ranking a valid issue in this case.) While you are welcome to improve the Dell article, the site in question doesn't add value to the article. --Sigma 7 (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

LedAstray, how can you seriously put forth any of the statements you just made? Important to the article? Not really. Legitimate? Eh, depends on the meaning of the word. Related, maybe. "The right to know... make up their minds for themselves." Hmm.... maybe if you weren't pushing a site that clearly advocated a position AGAINST the company that might seem serious. Ranking is not irrelevant, it shows the significance of the site, something that this particular site has none of. Alexa's accuracy... please bring evidence on that one. Not social/chat/forum.... Like it was already said, the site is a forum for people to whine about dell and nothing else. I also find it amusing that every time someone puts forth a noncredible or irrelvant idea/link/etc, they label it as censorship (note the spelling). You're not being censored, we don't work for dell. We are interested in creating a neutral, objective, unbiased, encyclopedia article with content that meets those standards. A link to that site does not in the least.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 17:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No "bad mouthing" of dell?

I'm noticing that there is a section in the "Acer Computers" article that states the website www.avoidacer.com and how bad they are. I also noticed that there is not a section like this in the dell. What about those dell laptops that exploded at the japanese conference a few years ago? didn't see anything about that in the article. Do you think a section like this should be added, just like it is in the other article i refered to, or should it be removed from the Acer article? FH33333248 (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not a consumer advocacy site, it is an online encyclopedia. Incidents such as this should reported neutrally using reliable sources if they meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. I've removed the section in question from the Acer Inc. article as it fails to meet these criteria. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Lead sentence structure

So I thought I'd added a note here about this in the past, but evidently hadn't. The lead sentence has been changed by User:Pedant17 to use the active voice five times in the last three months, without discussion or clear edit summaries. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] As the Manual of Style doesn't currently recommend this form, and the examples given in WP:LEDE don't use it, I'm reverting it again. Please don't change this back without first achieving consensus that the active form is more appropriate. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Only five times since 17 April 2008! -- Spot the difference between: "Dell, Inc. is a multinational ... which develops, manufactures ... " etc; and "Dell, Inc. -- a multinational ... -- develops, manufactures, ..." etc. The "is" version immediately and pseudo-authoritatively restricts our focus to a corporate entity. It pushes into the background sub-clause the other and equally valid parts of the Dell phenomenon: products and their marketing and their use by customers. The non-"is" version, though only marginally better, at least confines the bland corporateness to a parenthesized aside and presses on with all speed to state what Dell, Inc. actually does (and means and connotes...). Which version offers more completeness? Which version appears more neutral in its viewpoint? -- Since the Manual of Style doesn't currently proscribe my preferred (and arguably better) standard English usage, and since the WP:LEDE merely provides non-prescriptive examples, and since no portion of Wikipedia need ever remain locked in a stable state, I propose to continue editing any and every sentence in Wikipedia, randomly and non-randomly, with the aim of increasing clarity and improving style (aka "copyediting"). Please don't doctinairely revert such polishing without first achieving consensus that the bald and insipid and restrictive and potentially WP:NPOV-breaching stylistic over-use of the "is" of identity enhances our encyclopedia -- or recasting the Manual of Style to ban WP:brilliant prose. Alternatively, anyone wishing to micro-manage the English language can go and found a "Plodding English" Wikipedia to parallel the "Simple English" Wikipedia. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If you want to pontificate from your soapbox about how you disapprove of policy, please take it to the policy talk page. Unilaterally reverting content in articles becuase you disapprove of the rule it is based on is not the proper way to edit.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 12:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If you can point to a current Wikipedia rule or policy which bans the way I write, please do so. -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't "doctrinally revert" these edits - on the three examples I've reversed recently (Dell, nVidia, Oracle Database) the new wording was a deliberate contortion of the old in order to eliminate the use of the word "is", and all three needed rewriting regardless. I just find them distinctly weird given the precedent for encyclopedia articles to use the more common form, and evidently most people agree (which is why the manual of style doesn't recommend your active form). Rather than continuing to overwrite each others' work, it would probably be best either to seek centralised consensus on the preferred form or at least to stop changing it on established articles - evidently most people don't believe that the form used on the majority of the project's articles needs fixing, so this seems like a sensible compromise to allow both to exist without people rubbing each other up the wrong way. As for "micro-management" or whatever, I'd rather we stuck to the argument rather than making this personal if possible. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have explained above some of the advantages of re-casting the article lead: one cannot simply dismiss my repeated attempts to improve matters as 'a deliberate contortion of the old in order to eliminate the use of the word "is"'. My prose needs rewriting in the sense that all prose needs rewriting, but let's hear the arguments on a case-by-case, phrase-by-phrase basis. Talk of "precedent" and "common form" stifles innovation and improvement. Arguing that the style manual doesn't recommend a given form has no relevance: the manual (wisely) doesn't recommend using the word "carrots" in every sentence, but that doesn't mean that anyone has banned mention of carrots. Harking after a "preferred form" smacks of authoritarian attitudes at odds with the Wikipedia I know and edit. The appeal to the perceived crowd: "evidently most people don't believe that the form used on the majority of the project's articles needs fixing" makes unjustified assumptions and hints at a drive to standardization which does not and need not exist. Arguing on tha basis of what "most people don't believe' appears particularly pernicious -- many people lack a belief in certain things through lack of interest or knowledge. The majority of people in the world do not believe that a divine being inspired the Koran (say), but several million people genuinely do believe that. However, we recall Wikipedia's status: "not a democracy". -- I thoroughly endorse sticking to the argument -- in this case the argument as to the best way of introducing Dell or Dell Inc in a comprehensive yet simple and WP:NPOV manner. I've made a case for my preferred sentence-structure as opposed to another; despite vague references to alleged conventions, I've not yet seen any serious counter-argument, nor even an explanation as to why the latest of my proferred versions -- less wordy, punchier, and more balanced -- allegedly "needed rewriting regardless". -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Except it isn't "less wordy" or "punchier" in most of these examples, because the edits in question have generally consisted of a mechanical swapping-in of commas to replace the words "is", a full stop and the leading pronoun of the following sentence. This creates initial sentences which are often two or three lines long, with four or even six commas in them to offset all the clauses. A good example of this was your change to Bulgaria's lead sentence. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Even a mechanical formula may result in fewer words. I don't admit to making mechanical edits, but I do submit that my preferred style results in less wordiness. In the case of the Bulgaria lead I also added extra information with extra words, pointing out Bulgaria's state-hood. -- "Punchier" style must remain more a matter of opinion, but I see little wrong with paratactic phrases linked by commas: this structure occurs endemically in the English language. Note too of course that punchiness may militate against the greater balance achieved by avoiding the 'is' of identification. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Your "improved" lead sentence structure makes the introduction look weird, since almost all similar articles use the recommended style. Your possesivness of the lead sentence structure, which constitutes Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, as well as using a non-standard style, means that I am removing your lead sentences and replacing them with the recommended style. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 05:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I neither claim nor detect any ownership of this article: I merely strive to improve it in periodic different edits from time to time. If I have specifically offended against some "recommended style", I would appreciate a clear reference to that effect. Otherwise I propose to prefer "weird" improvment(as explained and justified above) to "almost all similar" so-called "standard" blandness (which I see nobody justifying on its merits, if any). -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well then, if you feel like the recommended style guidelines for lead sentence structures are against NPOV then go to the style guideline page's talk page and propose a change of recommended style, and see what the consensus turns up to be. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 06:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

If I ever start feeling as you suggest I'll take your advice, which would then become relevant. In the meantime I await a clear reference to a policy which would specifically ban my edits. Absent that, I'll go back to improving the article. -- Pedant17 (talk) 10:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

There is one: WP:CONSENSUS. Do not continue to edit war over this on articles where other editors disagree with you over it. There are plenty of articles where the active voice is not opposed; feel free to use it there. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

No consensus exists for reducing leads to a standardized type (show me otherwise). No consensus yet exists for how to introduce this article (show me otherwise). I've made the case for a better style, but no-one has either refuted my arguments or pointed to policy which bans my suggested text. On the contrary: I find vague talk of a "recommended style" (which apparently does not exist) and accusations of "non-standard style" (whatever that means) and of "deliberate contortion". I look forward to achieving some consensus, but I do expect that consensus to depend logically and clearly on stated policy. Comments? -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

As has been explained to you by at least four different editors by this point, "consensus" refers to the act of discussing one's individual edits just as much as it refers to the high-level process by which Wikipedia's guidelines are formed. That an action is not specifically prohibited by the Manual of Style does not mean that there is no consensus against it on an individual basis if others disagree with it. There is evidently no consensus that your edits to the lede here are an improvement; by that measure, you are obliged not to re-add them on a bimonthly basis if you haven't won any support for them. To do so is edit warring regardless of the length of time between individual edits. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I have no problem with the concept of levels of consensus: I have never seen that as an issue or as a matter for dispute. I do trust my comments have not misrepresented my opinions in that regard. I still see a need for discussion in the light of the WP:Consensus policy, which states: '"Consensus" among a small number of editors can never override the community consensus that is presented in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines; instead, consensus is the main tool for enforcing these standards. The focus of every dispute should be determining how best to comply with the relevant policies and guidelines. Editors have reached consensus when they agree that they have appropriately applied Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, not when they personally like the outcome.' -- As stated previously, I've put forward arguments for a better lead; I believe my suggested text complies with relevant policies and guidelines. If it doesn't, please demonstrate. If it does, let's move to the next stage: agree on the appropriate application of the policies and guidelines. Since we have not yet reached consensus, we can move towards it via discussions on this talk-page. -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

A month has passed without any fellow-editors disputing the contention that we need to agree on the appropriate application of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. No-one has responded to my invitation to demonstrate that my suggested text does not comply with relevant policies and guidelines. Indeed, no-one has even commented. I have to assume that my contentions overall have convinced all interested parties, in accordance with the principle that silence denotes consent as referenced in WP:CONSENSUS. I therefore propose to improve our lede (yet again). -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:SILENCE says that "consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident" and that "you can continue to hold that assumption (hopefully safely) until someone comes along and changes the page by editing or reverting" - in no way can this policy be interpreted as "if nobody has responded to my latest rebuttal regarding a particular edit, my viewpoint on that edit must now have consensus". — McGeddon , — (continues after insertion below.)

If anyone ever made the claim that "if nobody has responded to my latest rebuttal regarding a particular edit, my viewpoint on that edit must now have consensus" then I missed it. And where do I find the discussion on "my invitation to demonstrate that my favored text ("Dell Inc., a multinational technology corporation, develops...") does not comply with relevant policies and guidelines"? -- Pedant17 (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I am summarising your reasoning. Your actual words were "Indeed, no-one has even commented. I have to assume that my contentions overall have convinced all interested parties, in accordance with the principle that silence denotes consent as referenced in WP:CONSENSUS. I therefore propose to improve our lede (yet again).". This is not what "silence denotes consent" means, and this has been pointed out to you multiple times now. --McGeddon (talk) 13:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The summarising of "I have to assume that my contentions overall have convinced all interested parties, in accordance with the principle that silence denotes consent as referenced in WP:CONSENSUS" as "if nobody has responded to my latest rebuttal regarding a particular edit, my viewpoint on that edit must now have consensus" distorts my words. If we ever have WP:CONSENSUS, it vanishes when anyone (including myself) voices disagreement. At that point the "silence demotes consent" clock starts ticking again. So back to thrashing out the few remaining bases of disagreement below. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Consider me a third editor who thinks that "Dell Inc. is a multinational technology that develops..." is a much clearer lead sentence structure than "Dell Inc. (a multinational technology corporation) develops..." --McGeddon (talk) 23:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Clearer: perhaps, arguably. What makes it clearer? An extra clause? A more single-minded focus? An unbalanced highlighting of corporatism at the expense of technology? -- Please explain why "clearer" expression should outweigh considerations of Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADICTIONARY. -- And in passing: where on our talk-page have other editors opined that one lede structure appears to them "much clearer" than another? -- Pedant17 (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It has the same meaning, and doesn't require the reader to jump into and out of brackets to parse the sentence. It's closer to the "clear and understandable" requirement of WP:TONE.

Your E-Prime rephrasings have been described as "distinctly weird" and "makes the introduction look weird" by two other editors, earlier in this thread. It's possible to write a sentence that is clear, NPOV and not "weird", and I'm happy that the current lead satisfies that. (I'm not sure I see where WP:DICTIONARY comes into this.) --McGeddon (talk) 14:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The formulation "Dell Inc. is a multinational technology corporation that develops..." does not have exactly the same meaning as "Dell Inc. (a multinational technology corporation) develops..." -- the emphases differ according to the structuring of the syntax. Even if it were exactly identical in meaning, that would not furnish an argument for considering the one version clearer than the other. -- The use of a single set of brackets (parentheses) makes a sentence structure clearer -- definitely delineating where an interpolated structure stars and ends. Users of the English language have intimate familiarity with the structure of linguistic embedding, and the brackets merely give (clear) visual pointers to that in written texts. Even readers more familiar with other languages likely realize the typographical implications of a paired set of brackets. The brackets make the overall sentence clearer and more readily understandable. In this way they better fulfill the expectations of WP:TONE for formality ("Wikipedia articles [...] should be written in a formal tone")and practicality ("the English language should be used in a businesslike manner") and its requirements for generally accepted practice in the use of punctuation marks ("Punctuation marks that appear in the article should be used only per generally accepted practice"). The use of brackets, furthermore, does not "require the reader to jump into and out of brackets to parse the sentence". A reader may skip ("bracket out", as the saying goes) the marked interpolation, secure in the knowledge that the main flow of the sentence can do without it. And a reader choosing to scan the content of the brackets as well will recognize the nature of the included passage without undue mental effort. -- Can we agree now that my proposed structure: "Dell Inc. (a multinational technology corporation) develops..." provides clarity and reflects good style? -- User:Thumperward and User:Retro00064 found some of my previous edits "weird" only in that they did not slavishly follow a formula or a non-existent "recommended style": "the precedent for encyclopedia articles to use the more common form". I have dealt with their previous points -- just another couple of spurious objections -- and proposed a new version in compliance with existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Does anyone wish to re-litigate that process with regard to the latest proposed version? -- The significance of WP:NOTADICTIONARY lies in what that Wikipedia policy refers to as "the dictionary definition trap". Dictionaries can provide definitions. Encyclopedias provide definitions as part of a wider ambit -- in passing as it were. My proposed definition of Dell as "(a multinational technology corporation)" keeps dictionary-stuff in its place and presses on to highlight what WP:NOTADICTIONARY calls "other types of information about that topic" in accordance with the aim of producing something "very different from dictionary articles". Objections? -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I object to rewriting the first sentence in E-Prime, and agree with other editors that removing the word "is" from the lead makes the introduction look unnecessarily "weird". In a year and a half, no other editor has agreed with you that using brackets or commas to reach an E-Prime wording "provides clarity and reflects good style". I'd suggest raising an RFC if you feel that you're just dealing with a couple of editors who happen to have personal preferences that differ from your own. --McGeddon (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

If some objection arises just because a proposed improved version happens to conform to E-Prime, let's hear why that objection should outweigh the goals of providing factual encyclopedic information with succinctness and balance. -- If a formulation using normal English grammar and standard style happens to strike a small number of editors as looking "weird", then let's hear how removing that alleged (but unproven) "weirdness" would achieve the goals of providing more factual and more encyclopedic information with more succinctness and more balance. -- If no other editor in 18 months has approved my proposed use of brackets and commas (and for how many months have I proposed brackets? -- four? five?) then we might well conclude that the numerous other editors working on this article and participating in this talk-page have no objections. -- Lets discuss the substance and conformance to policies here: if we do that and still cannot agree on a resolution, then we might start to think about an RfC. -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

From this talk thread, your point seems to be that we should remove the word "is" because it you think that it "immediately and pseudo-authoritatively restricts our focus to a corporate entity", and that you personally think that brackets, commas or dashes would fix this problem. If the current focus of the lead sentence is genuinely misleading to the reader, it would be more constructive to rewrite that sentence to explicitly give the correct focus, rather than (as you seem to be arguing) relying on the reader to interpret "Dell (a corporation) sells computers" as having a subtly different and somehow more "factual" meaning than "Dell is a corporation that sells computers". --McGeddon (talk) 12:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. We can (by agreement) ignore the restrictive WP:BOLDTITLE guideline that forces the highlighted words towards the beginning of the sentence and write something like "The multi-national information-technology corporation Dell Inc develops, sells and supports computers and related products". Thus we would achieve factual accuracy, a precise definition and a flowing English style. -- Pedant17 (talk) 08:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to ignore WP:BOLDTITLE here. Both versions of the sentence seem equally accurate. --McGeddon (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Dell Computers in Hollywood

I thought I'd make mention of this fact because they are often seen in TV shows and movies. --Venixer (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

References and External Links

It seems to me that this article is behind the times when it comes to utilizing the Reference tools and minimizing external linking in the text. I was going to sit down and clean that up, but with the volume that's already on the page, I was unsure if it wasn't left that way for a reason. Hopefully I'm not loony or too new at this and that I'm just helping Wiki out. - Team4Technologies (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The article currently has 87 footnotes. Can you explain what you mean? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Examples as follows:

1. 8th on its annual Top 20 list of the most-admired companies
2. Michael Dell's off-campus dorm room at Dobie Center [10], the startup aimed to
3. On August 17, 2006, a Dell press-release stated that
4. On November 1, 2006, Dell's website began offering notebooks with
5. (Dell does offer those systems on their web site at http://www.dell.com/content/products/features.aspx/precn_n?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd&redirect=1 ). Dell has to ship
6. remote-access tool with the newer DellConnect 2.0 manufactured by Citrix
7. include shopping malls across Australia, Canada, Singapore and Hong Kong.
8. Dell in late 2006 lost its lead in the PC-business to Hewlett-Packard. Both Gartner and IDC estimated that in the third quarter of 2006 shipped more units worldwide than did Dell. Dell's 3.6% growth paled in comparison to HP's 15% growth during the same period. The problem got worse in the fourth quarter, when Gartner estimated that Dell PC shipments declined 8.9% (versus HP's 23.9% growth). As a result, at the end of 2006 Dell's overall PC market-share stood at 13.9% (versus HP's 17.4%).
9. Paris court to sue Minorca-based independent website-designer Paul Dell of "Dellimages" for engaging in
10. 45% of calls and long wait-times. Dell's blog detailed the response

These are the ones that popped out at me at first. There's more in there, but these are eyesores and do not seem to fit with the Wiki guidelines of inclusive editing. - Team4Technologies (talk) 01:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, right, yes. Those should all be converted to use <ref></ref> tags, with the exception of the Dell Images link (remove, spam) and the Direct 2 Dell link (not a direct link to a useful source). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Nader section

I agree with the previous removal. There's no evidence to suggest that Nader's appeal was the reason Dell started offering Linux machines, and it shouldn't be presented in a way that implies this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I have re-worded the the text in an attempt to decouple any implied connection between Nader's call and Dell's move into Linux. Nader's original letter to Dell (and to others) stands alone as a reflection of the importance of Dell (and of Linux) in the public perception at that time. We could -- further -- separate the Nader material out into a separate paragraph... -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Mass customization

Dell produces Mass customization —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.218.84.156 (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Manufacturing

The information on manufacturing plants could be substantially improved by incorporating the information in Dell's most recent Annual Report. (No need to use a WSJ article, Dell is quite clear about what they're doing where.) I'd be glad to do this, and in fact created an account for this purpose, but I see I'll need to clear the autoconfirmed hurdle. If nobody has fixed this by that time, I'll come back. --Cc68 (talk) 02:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

what do u want? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.148.220.77 (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Accurate information on location of production and more discussion of the manufacturing approach and what makes it distinctive. I took a stab at it. Cc68 (talk) 02:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

World-wide technical support section is not neutral

In 2006 The New York Times published a humorous review of the company's situation in an article by David Pogue. Pogue lamented the difficulties customers face when attempting to reach tech-support by phone. "When you are ready to MAKE THE CALL", he wrote, "go to the bathroom, take an aspirin, get a book or crossword, stock up on water and nibbles (preferably ones with high sugar content and no nutritional value; Twinkies are good)".

The "humorous" comment is obviously not NPOV, but someone's opinion. I don't find it particularly humorous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.90.127.38 (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Your right, it's not NPOV. I'm getting it fixed. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 10:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is not NPOV. Good catch --WaynePacelle (talk) 08:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

do lots of people not have an awful time with dell customer support? i know i have. took about 6 weeks to get my cd drive fixed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.125.210 (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ownership of Dell logo

Some naughty guy going by the name of Koman90 recently changed the original "DELL" wordmark (still in widespread current use) with Dell's black circular logo, and is commiting ownership over the logo by threatening to revert any edits that replace his logo, a JPG image, with the old logo, a SVG image. Just look at the comment he left in the infobox (visible in the article's edit mode): "New Re-Designed Dell Black Circular Logo Inserted Above, Please Do Not Replace With Old Logo If So, This Will Be Corrected, This Edit Is Being Monitored --~~~~"!! I don't mind the logo he put on the article, but a SVG version needs to be found/developed. Ownership of articles is against Wikipedia policy, so I thought adding a notice would be good. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 07:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Erm, are you referring to these edits, from over a month ago? I think this issue is closed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to the Graphics Lab, the logo has been updated to SVG version. That closes this issue for good. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 00:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Whats so long about this article?

I dont have an issue reading it ,perhaps this is more of a concern for the Simple English Wikipedia and not the regular one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonHockeyGuy (talk • contribs) 05:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Dell's Discontinued Product Line

One brand name is listed as Omniplex. I think that is incorrect. Optiplex was the name of the corporate desktop the company made. Vostro is a new brand name for the small and medium business desktop line. 70.116.26.24 (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Paul McKelvey

Linux

Is it just me or is Linux over represented by about 300% in this article than it probably should be?--202.0.51.210 (talk) 08:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

IMHO no, it is info I am actuality using for a paper right now. In fact, the link to ref. # 34 is wrong and should be http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2007/11/30/ubuntu_dell_sales/ But I can't correct it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.118.227 (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Dead links in this article

As a former Ottawa resident I was heartened to see so much Canadian content in this article. However, it appears that a lot of those Canadian links are dead. For example: Further reading Dell Ottawa references. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Inorrect information in the introduction

The article claims that "In 2007 Dell ranked ... 8th ... for the year". However, a google search shows that Dell did not make it into the top ten in 2007: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/mostadmired/2007/index.html Ottawahitech (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Query on GAN

Regarding the GAN, this nomination was done by user TheAustinMan who, as far as I can tell, has not been involved with this article. The article is in ok shape but at a glance the referencing does not appear ready for GA. Was there a discussion about nominating this for GA? TheAustinMan has in the past arbitrarily nominated an article that wasn't ready but before I rushed to do anything I just wanted to check.

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dell/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mcorazao (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Strictly speaking this article meets the quick-fail criteria because there are a number of paragraphs completely lacking citations. Since at a glance the article looks to have lots of references overall it may be possible to quickly bring this up to GA standards if somebody is motivated to do it. I'll leave this nomination open for a few days. --Mcorazao (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anybody stepping up so I have to fail the article based on insufficient citations for verification. --Mcorazao (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)