Talk:Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 2014 Edition

Merge with Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1

This article should be merged with the original Galaxy Note 10.1. The info box on this page should be what is shown on the original 10.1 wiki page, and the original 10.1 information should be moved down to its own section. I am thinking something along the lines of how Chevrolet Spark is done. With each new generation getting its own section. In the Industry, it appears that name changes in the devices are not going to happen (not like PSX, PS2, PS3, and PS4), but will be named the same (Galaxy Note 10.1 or iPad) but will have upgrades that are associated with new editions or generations. Either there can be ONE article that embodies all of them, or several pages that will be harder to maintain. I say go with one page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciscorucinski (talk • contribs) 11:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Like the gadgets in the Samsung Galaxy Tab series, this gadget is different from the original Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 and also it has an all new specs and details which is hard to be merged with the original one. The case of the chevrolet spark is different as it is a car and lastly with regards with the harder to maintain argument, Editors are willing to do undertake the said maintenance of each page despite the difficulty if it will be better understood by the readers. So I say let it be this way like before, if we want to improve it better do focus on the content rather than this argument on merging a page that could stand on its own.JeromesandilanicoJSD (talk) 12:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree Every other computer entry does not get a new article with a firmware/software/or slight hardware upgrade. 5 years from now no one will know which unit they are holding. It was nice of you to write this article and we appreciate that effort, however they need to be merged. Merge them. Ken (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Case in point Compaq LTE, section “Later Models”

The Compaq LTE article starts with the original grey 80086 and 80286 CPU DOS units with a monochrome display, designed and built by Citizen Watch company. "Later models" discuss the 386 and 486 LTE series which not only had different processors but added larger harddrives, various pointing devices (trackballs, thinksticks, etc) as well as optical drives, expansion slots of various architectures, dock-ability and so on. One article for a entire series of notebook computers spanning almost a decade and with at least 4 different physical incarnations. Heck, the screws holding them together weren't even the same.Ken (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Well in the case of that kind of article no writer was willing to expand it into several more due to them having no interest in that said topic plus the difficulty to find credible and acceptable sources for these which are rare due to the lack of web articles back then not unlike the Samsung Galaxy devices. And if im going with your argument that all models despite differing in shapes, sizes, specs, etc then you are not merely suggesting a merge of the Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 and Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 2014 edition, but merging all Samsung Galaxy devices with seperate articles into one super article and that dosent seem right so I maintain my position to oppose the merge.JeromesandilanicoJSD (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

No one said to merge all Galaxy products, only the Note 10.1 variants (only 2 so far unless you've managed to create yet another one...) The LTE example is an extreme case, only used to make a point.Ken (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

But you are pointing out that because they share the same name, despite the big difference that they should be merged and that specs and size is not a concern and because of that it also follows your argument still and it implies that all "Samsung Galaxy" devices must be merged. It is also worth noting that Samsung Galaxy Note 1, 2, and 3, Tab 1 (7.0,7.7,8.9,10.1), 2 (7.0,10.1), and 3 (7.0,8.0,10.1), S1, S2, S3, S4, etc have their own articles yet they are predecessors of each other. You could see here that users see that differences are notable enough to create a new article and that if ever the article is just a variant of the device take for example Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 and 10.1v, they themselves would contradict its spunning off or they are not spunned off each other despite hardware and design differences because they still go in the same line, just a different variant and they are not predecessor and successor of each other unlike the case of the Galaxy Note 10.1 and Galaxy Note 10.1 2014 Edition which clearly are different devices on their own that deserve their own article. So still oppose.JeromesandilanicoJSD (talk) 02:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

can someone tell me this

alright how the fuck is gaalxy note 10.1 2014 not the direct successor to tab s 10.5 Qwerty123shsh (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

galaxy* Qwerty123shsh (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)