Jump to content

Talk:Psion (company)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Disputed neutrality / overly promotion / sources

[edit]

There are two broad problems I see with this article - there is an overly promotional tone to much of it, making claims such as 'revolutionary' / 'world's first' etc; also, much of the early history relies on just one source, which itself doesn't actually cite any references. Whilst some of that *could* be verified elsewhere, statements such as the origin of the company's name are unverifiable and thus not encyclopaedic.Star-one (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not consistent

[edit]

It is not consistent to have a 3mx article and a 3 article but no 3a and 3c articles. We should fold the 3mx under the 3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.48.116 (talk • contribs)

Change to disambiguation page?

[edit]

I have a slight feeling this page should become a disambiguation page, with the current content here moved to (say) Psion PLC. Any views on this? Cheers --Pak21 08:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, it's taken care of. Hope I didn't do anything against the rules.JohnLanglie 11:27, 05 June 2006

Unfortunately, yes ;) There are procedures for everything here! see WP:MOVE. No worries though, I'll find someone to fix it :) -Quiddity 01:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Section on Psion's Linux involvement rife with errors...

[edit]

The project to port Linux to the Series 5 was originally known as the linux-7110 project, and was started by the open source community (specifically as a Red Hat employee's personal project), *not* Psion. Here's the announcement for the project:

http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=98/03/17/091500

Psion had minimal direct involvement with the project (eventually providing a few pages of low-level hardware information); in many respects, Psion was probably more pushed into it by Geofox freely providing their hardware information and a loaner Geofox One for the project's use.

The Linux-7110 project's website and mailing list moved from Red Hat to calcaria.net some months later as the Red Hat employee that started the project lacked the time to keep things going.

Doing a bit of searching for terms like "linux-7110" and "redhat" should point you at documents showing the project as being hosted there originally. I've not been able to find the archive for Red Hat's linux-7110 list, though if you search for [email protected] you'll see many hits indicating it did exist...

Well, I wouldn't say "rife" with errors...the one issue here is the precise origins of the project. The references suggest Psion's involvement, at least at the get-go, and certainly later on with the netBook Pro. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bdushaw/OpenPsion for the archived article on the subject that got deleted (not notable...don't get me started...there was a better, later version of the article, but I didn't archive it in time). I could be wrong, but to me the references suggested Psion's involvement and support at least at the start, though they seemed to fairly quickly have wandered away, true. I should transfer some of the references over. (I think one of the reasons the article got deleted was that there was only me editing the thing...) Bdushaw 16:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be precise, in reference 2: The Calcaria Linux 7k project or Linux CL-PS7110, as RedHat initially called it, is currently in development stage. The project has the support of Psion and according to Psion's technology strategist Andrew Till, "there's a very good chance the mobile version of Linux will get a Bluetooth implementation." (When I started writing this article, this quote surprised me.) Bdushaw 16:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I now see what your concerns were - I've edited the section again to be perhaps more accurate...but I've been desperate for other editors...hint, hint... :) Bdushaw 16:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very temped to ditch the Linux section - as it's not core or terribly useful. AMe (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

interview with Psion staffer

[edit]

Here's an interview with a Psion staffer which might be useful. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed. No Consensus. — Keithbob • Talk • 20:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Psion and Psion teklogix are the same company. The Teklogix was dropped from the name in January 2011.[1] Therefore, these are duplicate articles. 'Psion and the term Netbook' section and 'Psion and Linux' section are duplicated in Psion Teklogix article, as well as other information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmcfarland27 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Agree that there is far too much duplication between these two articles. Letdorf (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Create three separate articles underneath a disambiguation page? One article each for the two separate companies prior to their merger ending at that point, and a third article about the merged company starting from that point (but still referencing the parent articles)?Star-one (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I hadn't noticed this section until Star-one commented on it but I agree with with him - the distinction between companies should be preserved. Psion and Pssion Teklogix are not the same company although one is a subsidiary of the other. If these two are merged it would only be natural to merge in Teklogix too, leaving an awkward situation where the same article is referring to two different companies for the same time frame. Sure, there are lot of redundancy across the relevant article that needs to be addresses, but lumping them all together is not the answer. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and do something about splitting and content-editing some time during the next couple of weeks or so. Star-one (talk) 11:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - including a third article, Teklogix, which almost entirely repeats the Psion Teklogix one. While the histories of Psion and Teklogix are separate and distinct, both can (and should!) be covered by a single article. Keeping all three articles makes no sense, especially now that the company is becoming a subsidiary of Motorola. Owen× ☎ 14:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For instance EPOC (operating_system) is something notable created by the previously existing Psion. I would maybe only keep the historic aspects of Psion on that page and remove things related to Teklogix. As it currently stands, they are the same, but it was not always so. I think the page will be too cumbersome as a topic if you detail all of this. 216.94.244.179 (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Requested move 22 September 2014

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move the article as proposed, and move the disambiguation page from Psion (disambiguation) to Psion, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 23:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Psion → Psion (computers) – The primary meaning of Psion is the J/psi meson by reason of long-term significance. Psion should therefore redirect to J/psi meson. Andrewa (talk) 11:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
Innotata (talk · contribs) What you seem to be saying is that you support the move itself but would prefer the #Alternative proposal below regarding the resulting redirect and consequent move of the DAB. Could you indicate this (either way) explicitly in the relevant section? Andrewa (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:

I'm not entirely sure that computers is the best disambiguator, but I think it would be adequate. The important thing is to redirect the undisambiguated title to J/psi meson. Andrewa (talk) 11:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any evidence that the other article re represents the best known use of psion? I ask since that article does not even mention the term psion.--76.65.42.142 (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more thinking of long term significance. The meson has a great deal more significance than the computer manufacturer and all other uses, IMO.
But the article not mentioning the name is a very good point which I had missed, it used to mention it in the lede sentence [2] and IMO still should (I'm afraid I think that neither the person who tagged it citation needed nor the person who removed it as unsourced looked very hard for sources, but, unfortunately IMO, our current policy is that they don't need to look at all). Psion (disambiguation) still gives the J/psi meson as one meaning of psion, as does Wiktionary [3].
Fixed. Andrewa (talk) 00:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So let's look for sources. I get almost 90,000 ghits [4] (but that search does include Wiktionary) and 241 hits on Google books [5] of which all of the first page at least look very relevant. I'm afraid I just grew up calling them psions for short (I was serious about physics once) and just assumed everyone did, but it seems there is evidence that many still do (doesn't always work like that). Andrewa (talk) 04:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional characters

[edit]

From the survey above: The physics topic is also not the primary topic. It's most likely the type of fictional character, a person with psionic abilities.

The Dab currently [6] lists five relevant articles:

and I'm a little amazed at the suggestion that these, even taken together, would rival the psi-meson in long-term significance. Andrewa (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Significance of the J/psi meson

[edit]

Where to start... it earned Burton Richter and Samuel Ting the 1976 Nobel Prize in Physics, for a start. Andrewa (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative proposal

[edit]

Although I still would like to see the psi-meson acknowledged as the primary meaning of psion, there's no consensus on this as yet. There does however appear to be consensus that the Psion line of computers is not the primary meaning, so perhaps the appropriate action is to move the DAB to the undisambiguated name.

In that case, I think the move as proposed should go ahead, but the resulting redirect should for now point to the DAB, not to the article on the meson as I proposed above. If this occurs I will then raise a technical request to move the DAB over this redirect (it will I think need admin powers to do it because the redirect will have been edited).

The eventual result will then be that the article on Psion computers ends up at Psion (computers) and the DAB ends up at Psion. I think we have a strong consensus above that this would be an improvement over the current position.

I've expanded and refactored the DAB [7]. There's also a redirect at Psions [8] which probably needs changing, and one at Psions (Freedom City), and the hatnote at Psionics [9] seems out of date. Andrewa (talk) 03:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support this proposal. I feel that "psion" is used way too much in popular culture now for the scientific term to dominate, but certainly the company shouldn't be first, either. The DAB is a good compromise.   Remorseless Angel   讲  16:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the question above, yes, I support this, unless someone can convince me otherwise. There isn't a clear primary topic between the J/psi, the company, and the fictional concepts and characters. —innotata 19:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I believe and concede that there is a clear if rough consensus on this view. Andrewa (talk) 20:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a heads-up at Talk:Psion (disambiguation) [10] foreshadowing the technical move. Andrewa (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Psion (company). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Psion (company). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Psion (company). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Psion_(company)&oldid=1209893374"