Talk:2-in-1 laptop

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Laplet)

What is laplet and why any Android/iOS tablet with a keyboard is not laplet[edit]

No matter how you call it, laplet, 2 in 1 tablet or 2-in-1 laptop, or just 2 in 1, here are its prominent features.

Feature Explanation Devices not have it (are not laplets)
Operating System Any laplet runs a desktop operating system, like Windows 10. If its processing power is sufficient, it can run a complex and demanding software such as Adobe Photoshop. It is all about productivity. Laplets are devices capable to produce content, not just consume it. Any iPad (iOS-powered), any Android device
CPU Due to the fact that the only OS of the modern laplets is desktop Windows, and that it runs only on x86 CPUs, laplets at the current moment are only powered by the x86 CPUs, like Intel Core or Atom. However there is Debian for ARM devices and probably it can be installed on some Android devices with a concealable keyboard, but this is subject to confirm and is not officially supported. Any iPad (ARM-powered), any device with ARM CPU
External ports Any laplet should have external ports to connect any desktop grade peripheral devices (USB) and number of external displays (Mini DisplayPort or HDMI). Any iPad, Asus Transformer Pad (both do not have port for display connection)
Convertible (concealable) keyboard Laplet's keyboard is fully detachable or hideable (slideable, rotateable, whateverable). Traditional clamshell laptop or Ultrabook
Chart: Please add examples of hybrids that are not laplets so I can see your point of view better. [Dynamic address, previously 98.23.142.57] 50.96.3.75 (talk) 01:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is with Mindset like this, that Microsoft Windows online usage has now dropped down to below 40% ! Point is, in the developing world, people produce & develop content on Android devices -that is the point of an Open Ecosystem --Ne0 (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Examples of hybrids, that are not laplets are already in the table: Asus Transformer Pad, Lenovo Yoga. Other examples are HP Spectre x360, Lenovo X61, Dell Inspiron 13 7000. TranslucentCloud (talk) 11:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Asus Transformer Pad is a traditional hybrid. The Lenovo Yoga seems to be a convertible, not a hybrid. Same for the HP Spectre x360, Lenovo X61, and Dell Inspiron 13 7000. Non-laplet (and non-traditional) hybrids, please. 50.96.3.75 (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, Asus is hybrid and Yoga and the latter devices are convertibles, overlooked this, sorry for misinformation. There is no such thing as non-laplet non-traditional hybrids, since laplets are non-traditional hybrids, hence non-laplet hybrids are traditional ones. TranslucentCloud (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then why not combine the laplet and hybrid tablet categories instead of leaving an empty one? So: Hybrid tablet:Traditional hybrid::Laptop:Netbook. 204.234.74.238 (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Laplet is a subcategory of Hybrid. TranslucentCloud (talk) 07:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but why not call laplets hybrid tablets and have traditional tablets be a variant (subclass)? 204.234.74.238 (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Laplets are already called hybrids, check the Tablet article. Traditional tablet is not a subclass of a Hybrid, and it is on the same level with it, descending from the generic Tablet parent. TranslucentCloud (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry; I meant 'traditional hybrid.' Typo. 204.234.74.238 (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So: why not call laplets -> hybrid tablets and have traditional hybrids be a variant (subclass)? 204.234.74.238 (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't get it. You suggest to classify traditional hybrids as a subclass of laplets? TranslucentCloud (talk) 09:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And then rename [laplet] as [hybrid tablet]. 204.234.74.238 (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a Laplet is a sibling of a Traditional Hybrid branch, not a parent or a child. TranslucentCloud (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But why not make Laplet the parent of Traditional Hybrid like Laptop is the parent of Netbook???204.234.74.238 (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because traditional hybrid is not a subclass of a laplet, it has different hardware and often form. TranslucentCloud (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The exact statement applies to laptops and netbooks also. 204.234.74.238 (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, while netbooks have all the features of laptops, yet introduce some unique features, they are a subclass of a laptop. The same cannot be said about traditional hybrid, which does not have all the features of laplet, and at the same time introduces something unique. TranslucentCloud (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Hybrid tablets have a standard tablet base with a detachable keyboard that resembles a laptop keyboard," says the Tablet computer article. What is it they introduce that's actually unique or novel? What is it they're missing? Also, netbooks strip out hardware and are literally designed around a different form factor, as stated in the Netbook Talk page. They do not have all the features of laptops. 204.234.74.238 (talk) 13:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hybrid tablets introduce a detachable keyboard (compared to traditional laptops). Some hybrids are missing PC-features of traditional laptops (and laplets), especially those powered by mobile OS, such as Android. Netbooks have all the features of laptops, since they are just a mini-versions of traditional laptops. TranslucentCloud (talk) 07:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you hit the Tablet computer link, you would have noticed that the description came from underneath the 'Traditional Hybrid' category. Netbooks do not have all the features of laptops. Check the talk page for Netbook. The question for traditional hybrid tablets still applies, but please respond to the third-opinion request below. 204.234.74.238 (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Operating systems can be swapped out. Software is not used to create device classes (well, maybe firmware could), not even in combination with other factors. (Same for architecture) See the HP Slatebook 14. What category does this device fall in? Disregarding the HP Slatebook, a device does not deserve its own class if the only thing that separates it from its class is a single port (because OSs are transient). Is the Powerbook G3 Pismo not a personal computer because it has a different operating system, a different system architecture, and Firewire ports? 50.96.3.75 (talk) 01:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, operating system is a major factor, which cannot be swapped out, because it determines a productivity. HP Slatebook 14 is an Android-powered laptop. Sometimes a single port defines a device's crucial performance/use features, so it definitely can separarate it from some class. Operating systems are transient, but their own classes are permanent: desktop, mobile. Powerbook G3 Pismo is indeed a PC in a sense it is a personal computer, disregarding Apple's advertising of its desktop/mobile computers are being Macs, see the Personal_computer#Terminology. TranslucentCloud (talk) 11:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Still, running a mobile operating system (e,g,. Android x86) on a desktop PC does not change the PC into another device. Past trends have indicated that devices are classed mainly based on physical characteristics, like the HP Slatebook 14 is, not software. (In case I wasn't clear, I do believe Mac laptops are laptops. OS, arch, and ports did not put the Powerbook into another device class.) 50.96.3.75 (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, running a mobile OS on a PC doesn't change anything. Mac laptops are indeed laptops. Laptop is a subclass of a PC. TranslucentCloud (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! Android on a desktop is still a desktop, Android on a laptop is still a Laptop, Android on a Laplet is still a Laplet. --Ne0 (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request:
Note: this may not be my final suggestion; I will post again if so. I'll be honest and say that I'm a bit confused. I think I've understood what both sides want, but if we had sources, wouldn't it be easier to figure out the right way? Is there anything to back up both of your suggestions? Also, I request both of you to present your sides again, short and nicely summarised so that me or anyone reading can be sure about what you two want. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I took up an orphaned argument that I agreed with (I'm 204.234.xx.xxx). (Nevertheless, I also agree that this argument is confusing.)
There aren't any good sources; the computer industry tends to jump around with the terms, hence it is up to Wikipedians to classify and define these devices and terms. Ex, TechRadar calls the foldable, physical-keyboard tablets "convertibles" while NotebookCheck calls everything (including hybrid tablets) "convertibles." Even the term 'traditional hybrid' is made-up (see the Tablet computer article. No sources).
My side: 'Traditional hybrids' should be a subclass of 'laplets', and 'laplets' should be renamed 'hybrid tablets'. My reasoning is that 'traditional hybrids' are really just bulkier variants of 'laplets' that are designed to look more like laptops. And since the term 'laplet' never caught on, it alienates readers. Furthermore, 'laplets' aren't actually comfortable for using on a lap [1]; if you look up pictures of people using laptops, they have the bottom edge of the screen lined up with their knees to avoid bending their wrists. But for 'laplets', the kickstand takes up room and forces the user to bend his/her wrists and arms more to accommodate the closer keyboard. Hence, 'laplets' should be renamed 'hybrid tablets', thus closing up the now-empty category. [Traditional Hybrids] : [Laplets (renamed 'hybrid tablets')] :: [Netbooks] : [Laptops]
I hope this makes sense. Thanks. 204.234.74.238 (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The table above seems to border on original research. What matters is how the terms are used and defined in sources. PaleAqua (talk) 16:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

name change: laplet → 2-in-1 laptop[edit]

Article name change: laplet → 2-in-1 laptop. "laplet" is a name hardly used. TheHoax (talk)

What is a 2-in-1 computer? I do not see this on the web often. Can you provide some links? TranslucentCloud (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
TranslucentCloud Sorry. I meant 2-in-1 laptop. See here:[2] TheHoax (talk)
The term 2-in-1 laptop is not very suitable, because these devices may be not very reminiscent of laptops, also some of them may not at all resemble a tablet. Thus, neither 2-in-1 laptop, nor 2-in-1 tablet are very suitable. By the way, both terms redirect here. TranslucentCloud (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy[edit]

If I understand this correctly, the term 'laplet' is used to refer to a laptop in the shape (form?) of a tablet, i.e., a powerful version of a tablet hybrid. (How annoying marketing can be!) Nevertheless, 'laplet' fails the first criteria of 'Deciding on an article title' on Wikipedia:Article_titles because it never caught on: it only gets 326,000 search results off of Google, whereas something like '2 in 1 laptop' gets 136,000,000 results. Additionally, I don't believe there's an actual term for x86 tablets as they're just powerful versions of their ARM counterparts. Even Micrsoft just calls its 'laplets' tablets. 98.23.142.57 (talk) 23:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The term laplet is used to refer to a laptop in the shape/form of a tablet and to a tablet in the shape/form of a laptop. Not just this, it should conform to some technical requirements. Check the article for an explanation.
Yes, there is a lot of times being said, that the term laplet is less frequently met on the Internet, that 2 in 1/2-in-1 something.
Plain x86 tablets indeed are just powerful versions of their ARM counterparts, if these are just Atom-powered Android devices. But if we talk about some powerful and compact machines with USB and DisplayPort, there is still no official term, but some non-official (laplet included).
Microsoft calls its Surface models a tablet that can replace your laptop or just 2 in 1. Not just a regular tablet (however Surface Pro 3 does appear in Tablets section of the Microsoft Store (for better visibility)).
Resume: we can rename article to 2 in 1 tablet, 2 in 1 laptop (or 2-in-1 *, as Intel calls them) but still will it be proper decision? All these terms variants redirect here. Maybe we need a poll or something. TranslucentCloud (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Check the article" - That should be a meme ;) Yes, I read the article before posting on the Talk page. (Unrelated: I have a friend who edits the pages as he reads them and them complains when his edits are reversed.)
When the essential information is missing judging by the comments, it is a good practice to suggest to read the article, where the missing information can be found in the comprehensible form. TranslucentCloud (talk) 07:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know. It's just a feature of Wikipedia that, in my opinion, is redundant because it's (usually) instinct to search for the unknowns. 98.23.142.57 (talk) 23:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What worries me is how the term 'smartphone' ecompasses devices from the Nokia 9210 Communicator to modern-day devices like the iPhone 6, but the term 'tablet' has to be so fragmented. The criteria for a laplet are x86 arch, full OS, ports, and an attachable keyboard.[citation needed] Architecture shouldn't matter because both PPC and x86 based machines are PCs. OS shouldn't matter because older smartphones (dumbphones?) run OSs that make modern mobile OSs look 'full' though they share an umbrella term. Ports shouldn't either, because the ports of an IBM PC are different than those of a modern PC, yet the two share the same category. The philosophy behind all hybrid tablets are the same; a tablet with a dedicated removable keyboard that is designed to be laptop-like. Hybrid tablets are just evolving, like smartphones did.
I do not see the point why anyone can be worried by the fact that the Nokia 9210 and iPhone 6 both are smartphones, running the OS with the user's ability to install third-party apps. The main criteria for laplet/2 in 1 tablet/2-in-1 laptop is essentially just one: to act both as a tablet and a laptop. Basically, architecture does not matter, the x86 is mentioned in the article just because it is the sole architecture of modern laptops. We can remove any mentions of x86 altogether off the article, but this just may not seem right. The philosophy behind all hybrid tablets is the same: just form factor. The philosophy behind laplets is different: versatility. TranslucentCloud (talk) 07:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Modern smartphones are ""powerful and compact machines (with USB)"", but are categorized along with the classical smartphones. In essence, modern smartphones are built under the philosophy of 'superhub'. They perform tasks that classical smartphones wouldn't dream of doing. Versatility.
Older smartphones did not have a touchscreen; the philosophy behind interaction was the keyboard. Newer ones have the philosophy of tap-to-interact. New smartphones also contain (relatively) powerful components, contain new technologies (e.g., Wifi, SD card reader), and have a different design philosophy. 'Regular' hybrid tablets are designed to be versatile as well; why else would they be designed w/ a dedicated keyboard in mind? 98.23.142.57 (talk) 23:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regular hybrids/convertibles are not versatile enough since they cannot be used in the true tablet form. They are too thick and too heavy by the modern standards to be considered a tablet (see Lenovo Yoga). TranslucentCloud (talk) 10:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've never stated that convertibles are hybrids. Non-laplet hybrids work well as tablets. The Asus Transformer Pad weighs less than the Surface Pro 3 does. 50.96.3.75 (talk) 01:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Asus Transformer Pad is not even remotely as versatile as Surface Pro 3. The tablet part of Asus tablet weighs only 550 grams (1.21 lb), but its detachable dock adds another 550 grams (1.21 lb), hence the summarizing weigh is nearly 1,100 grams (2.4 lb). Surface Pro 3 itself weighs 800 grams (1.8 lb) plus add 295 grams (0.650 lb) Type Cover and the total weight is 1,095 grams (2.414 lb), which is roughly the same. TranslucentCloud (talk) 11:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was a mistake on my part to mention the Asus Transformer Pad. See above. Thanks. 50.96.3.75 (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, the Tablet computer article does not distinguish well between a 'hybrid' and a 'traditional hybrid'. In fact, 'traditional hybrid' is mentioned once in the article and then abandoned.
In the Tablet computer article the section Traditional hybrid is a subsection of Hybrid, thus the Traditional Hybrid is the offshoot of the more generic Hybrid category, just like the Laplet.TranslucentCloud (talk) 07:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The indentation and font size suggest the absense of subsections. "Traditional hybrid" appears with the same font size and intentation as "Hybrid". 98.23.142.57 (talk) 23:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's just Wikipedia's layout limitation. If you look at the article's source code or even better try to make TOC to show additional levels, you'll see the hierarchy I am talking about. TranslucentCloud (talk) 10:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thanks. 50.96.3.75 (talk) 01:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How many tablet categories are actually buzzwords? (Opinion: On Wikipedia, two.) In any case, let's avoid the naming situation encoutered with USB flash drives a couple years back.
Tablets now are too diverse to split into 2-3 categories. What seems buzzwords to someone, may be useful distinguishing terms to someone else. TranslucentCloud (talk) 07:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Though laptops are also diverse, the term 'notebook' eventually dropped out.
It is not dropped out, notebook term still is dominant in Russia when one refers to a laptop (see the Laptop article). Laptop and notebook terms are interchangeable, these are not buzzwords. TranslucentCloud (talk) 10:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
-There is no connection between the Opinion and the comment on laptops ("tablet categories . . . two). The terms 'notebook' and 'laptop' merged because the products being described were similar enough, like hybrid laptops and their subclass, laplets. 50.96.3.75 (talk) 01:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The designs vary, but 'hybrid tablet' still means a tablet with a keyboard. It doesn't matter what design the keyboard has; it's still a hybrid tablet. Keyboard design didn't separate smartphones into different categories. 98.23.142.57 (talk) 23:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keyboard design doesn't separate. Keyboard design, along with a connectivity, along with an operating system does separate. TranslucentCloud (talk) 10:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the comments under the chart (and reply there, probably). 50.96.3.75 (talk) 01:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"tablet that can replace your laptop" seems to be a tagline, not a way to reference a product. A Surface tablet is still referenced as a tablet (or just 'Surface'); i.e., a tablet (that can replace your laptop). The title tag of http://www.microsoft.com/Surface/en-US is "Microsoft Surface Tablets - The Windows Laptop Replacement That Does More". Unless Microsoft laplets are actually called 'Windows Laptop Replacements . . .?
Indeed it is the tagline. But if we take the Microsoft's approach to classify devices, things will get very confusing. Go to the Microsoft Store, then to the All PCs & tablets category. Check the Tablets subcategory. Surface Pro 3 is there. Check 2 in 1. Surface Pro 3 is there. Check Windows 10 PCs. Surface Pro 3 is there. Poll: what the Surface Pro 3 is? TranslucentCloud (talk) 07:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As you've stated before, it's posted in multiple categories for visibility. However, the SP3 user manual refers to it solely as a tablet. It's under the PC category because tablets, along with Laptops, are technically PCs. 98.23.142.57 (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nvidia likes to spell itself NVIDIA, Microsoft likes to call its Surface pro 3 a tablet. Wikipedia follows a common sense and spell Nvidia as Nvidia and calls Surface Pro 3 a laplet. TranslucentCloud (talk) 10:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a brand name. This is a device category. 50.96.3.75 (talk) 01:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. It is just an example. If some company want to call something as A (category of its device or even own brandname), when it is actually B, Wikipedia will call it B. TranslucentCloud (talk) 11:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Microsoft is right to call it a tablet. Hybrid tablets are tablets. So it is actually B, though B is a correct but vague term. I revoked the "Additionally, I don't believe there's an actual term for x86 tablets as they're just powerful versions of their ARM counterparts" argument after you mentioned the formatting limitations of Wikipedia. So the Surface Pro series can be classified as more than a tablet, but whether or not it can be classified as more than a hybrid tablet is now being debated. 50.96.3.75 (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not it can be classified as more, than a hybrid tablet is obvious, since there is a further class. The debate is whether or not it should be classified this way, particularly on Wikipedia. I believe it should. TranslucentCloud (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not renaming. In my opinion, laplets shouldn't be a (sub)category at all; they're hybrid tablets. Likewise, 'dumbphone' and 'supersmartphone' aren't categories. Opinion: Merge Hybrid, Traditional Hybrid, and Laplet on Tablet_computer and merge this article with the resulting category. 98.23.142.57 (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Hybrid tablets are too diverse to be a single category. Surface Pro 3 has very little in common with Asus Transformer Pad. TranslucentCloud (talk) 07:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They (SP3 & Asus Transformer Pad) both have dumb (not much processing power) keyboards. It doesn't matter whether the detachable keyboards is thicker or has ports. In both, the smart portion in the screen part, and the dumb portion is in the (dedicated) detachable keyboard. 98.23.142.57 (talk) 23:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SP3 is distinguished from Asus Transformer Pad not by the keyboard (design is basically the same), but by a display connectivity and an operating system. TranslucentCloud (talk) 10:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the comments below the chart (and reply there, probably). 50.96.3.75 (talk) 01:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding recent edits[edit]

@Comp.arch: I want to answer some questions you raised in the comments of your recent edits of the article.

"have an x86-architecture CPU", is unsourced/untrue?

The 2-in-1 tablet/laplet does not necessarily have to have an x86-architecture CPU. It should have any CPU, capable of running a full OS like Debian GNU/Linux, Apple OS X or Windows 10. For now it is x86 only.

Not clear that "laplet" is a separate distinctive category, seems the word is made up to support Windows. Similar for factors of *devices* are available for Android, the OS supports it..

I cannot see why you decided 2-in-1 tablet/laplet category is made up to support Windows. Yes, current devices have pre-installed Windows, but you can install some Linux distribution unofficially, and the gossips are the iPad Pro will run OS X.

Let's talk about article issues in the appropriate place (here), before making bold statements. TranslucentCloud (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see, you created the page (and probably maintain), you are right, here is the place (at least if there is a big disagreement.. and there isn't..). I'm new to this page (and the concept! and would have to look into it). I'm in no way attacking you, at least there are sources for the concept (that I haven't read yet..), I'm not saying you made it up, more like Intel? similar to Ultrabook etc. Some classes of form factors are not exactly well defined.. Yes, the criticism section, might not be the best place. I just felt Android had been overlooked and didn't notice the section title.. "Full OS" isn't well defined - who defines that..? comp.arch (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for trying to contribute and to understand the question. Android is not overlooked, it just does not fit into this category, since it is basically a mobile OS. Hovewer, some anonymous editor added a sentence, that Android apps can be used in Windows, check the recent edits. By the way, the definition of OS as full really seems ambiguous, thanks for the suggestion, I will change it to desktop. TranslucentCloud (talk) 10:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the concept is meant to include an OS like Debian, then it doesn't require an x86.. It can be an ARM computer. That would exclude the usual Windows, and some people might consider the device useless because it doesn't support their preferred OS, that is Windows. That is why I say the category seems made up for Windows. It could still be that category! I'm not saying you made it up.. Still, the terms might change over time and this term doesn't seems made up, by Intel, like Ultrabook. comp.arch (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Laplet Page Examples[edit]

Except for the Acer Aspire Switch 11, all the devices listed under the last paragraph of Early Devices are convertibles. They do not belong here. 50.96.3.75 (talk) 01:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for heads up, section cleaned. TranslucentCloud (talk) 07:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources needed[edit]

There are no sources cited for "Distinction from a tablet" and "Distinction from a laptop", including that it must run a desktop OS. It is clear that the Pixel C when used with the keyboard and the iPad Pro when used with the keyboard are both laplets per the article intro: you can use it like a laptop with an attached keyboard or like a tablet without a keyboard. --Pmsyyz (talk) 07:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as with all hybrids, such as, phablet you'll have a dilemma (still this could be what sources say..). I was going to ask if this was true..: "laplet run a full-featured desktop OS like Windows 10, have a CPU capable to run it (typically low- or ultra-low-voltage x86-architecture model, such as Intel Core i5), and have a number of typical laptop I/O ports, such as USB and Mini DisplayPort."
The distinction between "desktop OS" (originally the desktop metaphor, came with MacOS, but strangely the trashcan was on the desktop.. and it had overlapping windows and a WIMP-UI.) and so-called mobile OS might seem clear (or is it? in a hybrid OS it isn't). The text assumes that mobile/Android/iOS is not as "full-featured", not a hybrid. Android does support a keyboard and a mouse, just not as standard overlapping windows, that seems not do defining, and maybe not many mouse buttons (the original Mac didn't either). Scrollbars?
Most Android devices have USB..?! Many can connect to a separate screen, while not all laptops can (at least early examples of laptops). comp.arch (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete[edit]

I'm beginning to think this page should just be nominated for deletion and just be covered as part of the laptop and tablet articles. --Pmsyyz (talk) 07:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think, clearly, a laptop (without touch-screen) can't be a laplet. Less clear that a tablet can't be a laplet.. Just any tablet (at least of sufficient size) where you can buy a keyboard and mouse.. Is the word about the form factor/hardware only or what operating system you can run on it (usefully for both of the functionalities?)? comp.arch (talk) 15:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article rename to more recognizable 2-in-1 tablet and then back to Laplet[edit]

The article Laplet has been renamed to a more recognizable and usable 2-in-1 tablet, and its content significantly restructured. Your additional contributions are welcome. TranslucentCloud (talk) 12:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: 2-in-1 tablet is promotional language, as it is the term Microsoft uses to refer to its laplet products (thus implying a bias due to consistency with Microsoft Surface due to the narrow scope of your edits). Laplet is a neutral term. Please discuss these changes before executing them. In particular, do you have any sufficient citations indicating that this is the WP:COMMONNAME? In fact, you previously stated "The term 2-in-1 laptop is not very suitable, because these devices may be not very reminiscent of laptops, also some of them may not at all resemble a tablet", a statement that could also apply to "2-in-1 tablet" ViperSnake151  Talk  15:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree (to "promotional"). I do not know what is most used. Anyway, laplet seems ok, similar to phablet, I think people would know from the name that it is an in-between-category. A possible problem with 2-in-1, is what two are "in"? Is it a tablet and 1) a phone.. 2) a camera.. :) comp.arch (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, guys. It is not Microsoft who invented the 2-in-1, look for Intel, HP, Dell, Lenovo and others, they use it to refer to their devices. Jornalists either. The term is universal and a way more popular, than laplet. I like laplet too, since the first day I heard it, but obviously the world did not embrace it. We should stick to the universal term. TranslucentCloud (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The term "laplet" dates back to at least 2012. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The guy on Twitter coined it. And what does it mean for Wikipedia? Wikipedia uses most common terms, not most early. TranslucentCloud (talk) 06:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2-in-1 tablet or Laplet: let's get a consensus[edit]

Seems we need a consensus. Due to the fact this article is not too popular, I am pinging notable editors, who probably care: Indrek, Codename Lisa, PaleAqua, WikIan, WPSamson, Some Gadget Geek, NeoGeneric, Josh the Nerd.

Short non-exhaustive summary.

2-in-1 tablet or simply 2-in-1:

  • WP:COMMONTERM: almost all of prominent vendors use the term, including Microsoft and Intel
  • WP:RECOGNIZABLE: typically journalists use this term to refer to these devices in their articles

Laplet:

  • emerged earlier (in early 2012 in Twitter)
  • sounds cool

Let's get a consensus. TranslucentCloud (talk) 08:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

In my anecdotal experience, I've only ever read/heard about these types of devices as "2-in-1s", except here on Wikipedia where they are also referred to as "laplets".
And doing a quick reality check confirms this is the case:
  • The major PC manufacturers (e.g. Dell, Lenovo, HP, ASUS), refer to these devices 2-in-1 PCs/laptops.
  • Google trends show that the search volume for "2-in-1" vs "laplets" as basically 100 to none (with no y-axis I guess that's search volume percent!)
https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=laplet%2C%202%20in%201%2C%202-in-1&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT-11
And I think just 2-in-1 is fine because these devices can vary from tablet-centric devices (e.g. Surface Pro) to laptop-centric devices (e.g. Surface Book)
So yes, I'm in the "2-in-1" boat here. Cheers,  NeoGeneric 💬  09:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's NOT get consensus, at least not based on that. Laplet would always mean this thing under consideration, while Google trends shows "Emel introduces 2-in-1 flashlight and lantern in Nigeria" and result I do not understand in Chinese and Thai.. This shows laplet might be more common than tablet: https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=laplet%2C%20%222%20in%201%20tablet%22%2C%20%222-in-1%20tablet%22%2C%20%222%20in%201%20laptop%22%2C%20%222-in-1%20laptop%22&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT-11
Well, I've been WP:BOLD (just as usual) and did my edits without a consensus, but fellow editor didn't let me go. So, we definitely need it. TranslucentCloud (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can go with whatever, for now (this isn't a big deal to me..), but as the category is fairly new(?) maybe we want to hold off on a "consensus for all time"..? I understand the C in Pixel C means "Convertible" (I thought it might have been USB-C.. comp.arch (talk) 13:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The category in question is not really a new, it is embraced by most vendors and new devices keep appearing with an accelerating pace. TranslucentCloud (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that "2-in-1" seems more common than "laplet", being used by both manufacturers and media. That said, I'm not sure if "2-in-1 tablet" is entirely correct - most devices in this category are, I imagine, better described as laptops with detachable keyboards, rather than tablets with attachable keyboards, therefore "2-in-1 laptop" would be a better option. Google Trends also shows that term to be much more popular than either "2-in-1 tablet" or "laplet".[3]
However, "laplet" is shorter, reads better and avoids potential dispute over whether a given device is more of a laptop or a tablet.
Another option is "hybrid laptop", although that's perhaps too generic, also encompassing convertible designs that transform into a tablet without detaching the keyboard. Then again, "laplet" has also been used to refer to non-detachable hybrids.[4]
All things considered, my position would be weak support for "2-in-1 laptop". Indrek (talk) 09:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: not all hybrid laptops are 2-in-1's: those without support of desktop operating system (Windows 10 for example) are just hybrid laptops or simply hybrids. And conversely, all hybrid laptops, which has all the features of traditional laptops (keyboard, OS, ports), yet of traditional tablets (touchscreen, concealable keyboard) are 2-in-1's.
As for this article's name, 2-in-1 laptop seems reasonable, but given the fact the tablets now are way more popular and dominant in the market, seems like all new converged devices are being compared to tablets (by users and press). Some of the modern converged devices now are already thin and light enough to be considered tablets, and the minimization trend will make all the future devices thinner and lighter more and more. Hence if not now, then in not so distant future, if the 2-in-1 term will be still common, it will be 2-in-1 tablet, not 2-in-1 laptop. TranslucentCloud (talk) 10:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can consider "2-in-1 tablet" to be the common name if and when that actually happens. For the time being, "2-in-1 laptop" appears to be far more popular, and such devices are generally considered to compete with traditional laptops and ultrabooks, rather than tablets. Indrek (talk) 07:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How you determined this general consideration? Contrary to your argument, I see traditional tablets as a main competing category to 2-in-1's. Very few have a laptop now and new devices on the market (2-in-1's) should compete with the existing devices in use of a general public. No one vendor will compete with a non-dominant category. Manufacturers should convince the public with their devices (mostly tablets) to swap these devices for a something new, agile and a more powerful (2-in-1's). TranslucentCloud (talk) 07:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is the Surface Pro line most often compared with the MacBook Air or the iPad? Indrek (talk) 10:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure with what it compared more often, as it competes with both. TranslucentCloud (talk) 12:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that at the moment the article covers two distinct types of devices, both of which would be considered 2-in-1s but are visually and functionally different:
  • 2-in-1 laptops: Devices that appear and function like a traditional clamshell laptop, with a hinge and base that can support the screen without the need of a kickstand or similar. How they achieve tablet functionality depends on the device - on one end you have the Surface Book and Asus Transformer with detachable screens, and on the other there is the Lenovo Yoga and HP x360 with the ability to swivel or convert.
  • 2-in-1 tablets: Tablets with accessories or design features that allow them to function similar to (but not the same as) laptops. This includes the Surface Pro, HP Spectre x2, VAIO Z Canvas, etc with their respective kickstands and keyboard covers. Devices like the VAIO Duo would also be included here.
I feel you'd either need 2 separate articles covering each or a single article covering 2-in-1s in general and making the distinction between the two.
As others have mentioned, where it gets complicated (especially when it comes to 2-in-1 tablets) is deciding whether something is considered a 2-in-1 or not. For example, is the iPad Air a 2-in-1 because you can buy keyboard covers and docks? Ultimately I think it has to come down to how a device is marketed and perceived by the press + public. --Strata8 (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, any iPad is not a 2-in-1, even with a keyboard, since there is no iPad to run desktop OS. TranslucentCloud (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We can bold all these terms in the lead. We could even have them all in the name of the article (for now..)? "Laplets, 2-in-1 tablets and 2-in-1 laptops".. I'm guessing some of these terms will die out.. Then we can reconsider.. comp.arch (talk) 13:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should follow WP:COMMONNAME, etc and use a form of "2-in-1". Not sure where the balance falls between "2-in-1 tablet", "2-in-1 laptop" or "2-in-1 computer", we would probably need to check source usages and meanings. Unless "laplet" is shown to be commonly used outside of wikipedia it seems like a neologism—see also MOS:NEO—and should probably be avoided. PaleAqua (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2-in-1 computer sounds terrible. We can either use words tablet or laptop, because it is these devices to be converged. TranslucentCloud (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you can use either of those terms given the current scope of the article. "2-in-1 tablet" to me implies a tablet with 2-in-1 functionality, and devices like the Lenovo Yoga are very clearly not tablets. Similar situation for "2-in-1 laptop" in regards to the Surface Pro. Ideally I'd want to use "2-in-1" on its own but it's ambiguous and only makes sense in context, so something along the line of "2-in-1 computer" has to be used. It doesn't sound particularly elegant but it's recognisable. --Strata8 (talk) 01:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"devices like the Lenovo Yoga are very clearly not tablets": why not? These devices have foldable keyboards and in this state they are very clearly tablets. Not so light as an iPad Air, but still in the same form factor. TranslucentCloud (talk) 07:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but no one is going to look at the Yoga in the store and call it a tablet. It shares far more characteristics with what most people would consider a laptop. I think what's important is not so much following a strict set of definitions, but considering how the majority of the public would perceive a device. --Strata8 (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in 90's most people thought that any IT specialists are programmers and called them that accordingly. The point I want to make is that the terms in use of the general public are not always representative. Regarding Yoga, I can easily imagine a man, seeing a folded Yoga in some store, which will call it a tablet. Although, most people will probably not. TranslucentCloud (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"2-in-1 PC" or "2 in 1 PC" seems like it might be an option as well. Started noticing it when I tried to think of different sources to check, see fledgling table below. PaleAqua (talk) 03:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now, when the only OS option of these devices is Windows, 2-in-1 PC sounds good. But in another year or two Apple probably will release its own variation on a theme and 2-in-1 PC will be obsolete, because Apple computers are not PC's. TranslucentCloud (talk) 07:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When that happens we continue to follow the sources use which likely would change. For what it's worth Apple computers are personal computers (PCs), though these days that mostly refers to what formerly was known as IBM PC clones. PaleAqua (talk) 14:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to avoid the term "Laplet" as it applies to Surface Book. This term is very uncommon compared to "2-in-1" as others have pointed out. The Surface Book is much more like a laptop than a tablet, the keyboard is both full sized and not optional since the screen must be attached to the keyboard to be charged. The fact that the "PC" part is contained in the screen is not sufficient argument to say it's a tablet first device. Like cars, where the "engine" is located does not change the fact that it is a car. Kernel Patch (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please, let's keep the discussion regarding Surface Book in the corresponding talk page. TranslucentCloud (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some PC manufacturer websites to the survey below. Tell me what you think. It seems like 2-in-1 is the 'official' name - likely promoted by Intel - and appears on these pages along with most of the stores. I think either that or 2-in-1 PCs would be suitable. Using (what I'd consider) a marketing name isn't ideal but the media is all over the place, using terms like "hybrid", "convertible", "2-in-1" etc. interchangeably and inconsistently. --Strata8 (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if Intel has promoted 2-in-1 or maybe Microsoft, or maybe both, or maybe other companies too. This not makes any sense and let's avoid this speculation. The fact is that the 2-in-1 term now is widespread. TranslucentCloud (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source survey[edit]

I think it might be helpful to put together a survey of what terms are in use in the public. Please feel free to add, reorganize, etc. just getting it started for now, and we probably need to check ngram type sources as well. So far I've noticed that at least some news sources don't seem to be consistent internally, even within the same article. PaleAqua (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Type Source Device / General Term Quote
Store Amazon General 2 in 1 PCs[5] Tablet when you want it. Laptop when you need it.
Store BestBuy General 2-in-1s[6]

2-in-1 Laptops[7]

The processing power and keyboard of a laptop plus the fun factor of a tablet make the perfect computing companion for work or for play.
Store newegg General 2 in 1 Laptops[8]
Store B&H Photo General 2 in 1 Laptops[9] Combines the ease of a touch screen tablet with the practicality of a keyboard.
Store B&H Photo General 2-in-1 Notebook[10] 360° hinge lets you use it as a tablet or a notebook.
News (Tech) The Verge Surface Pro 4 Tablet[11]
tablet-laptop hybrid[12]
News (Tech) The Verge Surface Book Laptop

Tablet
2-in-1 PC[13]

News (General) USA Today Surface Pro 4 Tablet
Hybrid tablet computer[14]
News (General) USA Today Surface Book Laptop[15]
Manufacturer Intel General 2-in-1[16]
Manufacturer ASUS General 2-in-1 PC[17]
Store Microsoft Store General 2-in-1[18]
Manufacturer Dell General 2-in-1 PC[19]
Manufacturer HP General 2-in-1 laptop/2-in-1[20]
Manufacturer Lenovo General Convertible 2-in-1[21]
As expected, most refer to these devices as some kind of 2-in-1. TranslucentCloud (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 October 2015[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: Procedural Close as a newer page move request has been opened, which is the direct result of the discussion here.Tiggerjay (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC) Tiggerjay (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(non-admin closure)

Laplet → 2-in-1 – Seems to be the most common name for the devices the article covers, as evidenced by pages from manufacturers like Intel, ASUS, Dell, HP and Lenovo. Stores such as Amazon, Newegg, BestBuy, and Microsoft Store also use the same term or a variation of. The media is less consistent, often using terms like 'convertible' or 'hybrid', but 2-in-1 is still pervasive. Alternatively 2-in-1 PC could be used instead to reduce ambiguity. Strata8 (talk) 02:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support but only for "2-in-1 PC" or "2-in-1 laptop" as I don't think "2-in-1" by itself passes WP:PRECISION; consider 2-in-1 printer/scanners for example. PaleAqua (talk) 02:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but only "2-in-1 PC" or "2-in-1 laptop" per WP:PRECISION. Additionally 2-in-1 should really be a dab page. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose "2-in-1" has a wide variety of meanings [22], per PaleAqua and In ictu oculi. The proposed name is bad. "2-in-1 laptop computer" perhaps would work. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm... we already have a separate one for laptops at convertible laptop (going back to the main laptop article), while this is specifically for netbook+tablets... -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "2-in-1 laptop" or "2-in-1 PC", per above. Oppose "2-in-1" as too ambiguous. Indrek (talk) 06:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but only for 2-in-1 tablet, since 2-in-1 should be disambiguation page and the most prominent 2-in-1's (Surface Pro's) and upcoming devices will be used and perceived primarily as tablets by the public. We need to choose between a tablet and a laptop in the term, disregarding constructive peculiarities, and a tablet should be in favor due to a far more greater popularity of this kind of devices (compared to laptops). Laptop is a vanishing term, let's not artificially extend its life. Strong oppose to 2-in-1 PC since the term should not be restricted to a PC architecture only (Apple may release its own version of 2-in-1 soon). On the second thought, 2-in-1 (computing) may be optimal name. TranslucentCloud (talk) 07:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Because I don't think that 2-in-1 laptops and tablets need their own page, they can easily be subsections of the 2-in-1 page, especially because both these categories of devices have a great amount content overlap in terms of their functionality, design and history.  NeoGeneric 💬  22:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "2-in-1 laptops" is currently located at convertible laptop (which have integral keyboards ans swivel screens), while this article is for '2-in-1 tablets' (which have removable keyboards) --- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Honestly, 2-in-1 is a horrible name, but so is laplet. I've heard it called convertibles, hybrids, convertible tablets, convertible laptops, 2-in-1s but only here "laplets" WikIan -(talk) 04:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I agree with @NeoGeneric, only one page named 2-in-1 is needed, and the content can make the distinctions between those devices. 2-in-1 is a generic term for any device that can function as a tablet and can run desktop applications. There will be devices that are tablet first devices (Surface Pro, Dell 11 Pro) or laptop first (Surface Book, Lenovo Yoga) and the article can explain the different variations and trade-offs in the designs. Strongly appose renaming the page to 2-in-1 Tablet, because tablet function is a requirement to be a 2-in-1 and so it is a redundant term and is biased against laptop first devices like the Yoga or Surface Book. Kernel Patch (talk) 05:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "2-in-1" does not "only" mean this device. Indeed, for much of PC history, it meant a printer with a scanner. And as Wikipedia is not a "PC parts encyclopedia" it totally ignores all uses outside the PC industry, which are many, varied, and existed much longer than the PC industry has been around. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 03:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a good point, 2-in-1 is too generic, so I would go with 2-in-1 PC as the generic category since there are wide range of devices that are either laptop first or tablet first capable of PC functionality. Kernel Patch (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support moving the page, but oppose the target 2-in-1 as per TranslucentCloud et al (ambiguous). Prefer 2-in-1 laptop as the target location. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 02:33, 19 October 2015 (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.

Requested move 19 October 2015 (1)[edit]

Page move request to 2-in-1 (computing) - which closed with NOT MOVED.
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: Not moved based on opposes and duplicate page move requests. Tiggerjay (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC) Tiggerjay (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(non-admin closure)

Laplet → 2-in-1 (computing) – Laplet is barely used, 2-in-1 is too ambiguous, and 2-in-1 tablet or 2-in-1 laptop are too form factor-specific. Per comments on the proposed move to 2-in-1 tablet, there is no need to differentiate tablets and laptops here, so one unified article is sufficient. TranslucentCloud (talk) 09:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose as "2-in-1" in a computing context can also mean a multi-function printer (see the disambiguation page Two in one), so the proposed title is still ambiguous. Would support "2-in-1 (computer)". Indrek (talk) 10:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose there are many 2-in-1's in computing, per the prior discussion just above -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 11:00, 19 October 2015 (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.

Requested move 19 October 2015 (2)[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: Moved to 2-in-1 PC Mike Cline (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Laplet → 2-in-1 (computer) – To differentiate from printer/scanner 2-in-1's. TranslucentCloud (talk) 10:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, as all other proposed titles seem to be either too ambiguous ("2-in-1"), or too specific ("2-in-1 tablet/laptop/PC"). Indrek (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (but prefer "2-in-1 PC" or "2-in 1 laptop"). I do not think we need to worry about what Apple might or might not do and how the terms used might change in that case as wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I also request that any closer consider all the comments made in all related RMs together. I kinda wish we had finished the discussion and usage survey before all the RMs had openned. I was seeing a slight preference in sources towards 2-in-1 PC and 2-in-1 laptop but still wanted to look further. PaleAqua (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not endorse an architecture-specific term. TranslucentCloud (talk) 10:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider either to be architecture-specific vs other possible 2-in-1 architecture. I very much doubt that we will have minicomputers or mainframe 2-in-1s only personal microcomputers. That said I do support this as better than "laplet". To be honest the first RM felt like it jumped the starting gate a bit and the following 2 feel like they are trying to reframe the question away from the direction the first discussion was heading. It is perfectly fine for an RM discussion to consider other names in !votes than the one purposed as clearly was already happening. PaleAqua (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PC is a personal computer it is not architecture specific. WikIan -(talk) 18:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it is a personal computer, however the general public perceives PC's as the opposite to, say, Macs. And even tablets on Android and iOS, which can be classified as PC's, are not perceived like that. To make things clear as much as possible, we should not use PC term for all the personal computer devices, even given the fact they are actually PC's. TranslucentCloud (talk) 09:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as it's less restrictive than "2-in-1 PC" (or similar) and more precise than "2-in-1" on its own. --Strata8 (talk) 11:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the brackets necessary? Perhaps 2-in-1 computer would be more appropriate. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since we are not talking a proper name ( though that raises the question is 2-in-1 an Intel trademark for this or just something they are popularizing ). I agree that parenthesis are probably not necessary as we are talking a descriptive title and refering to them as 2-in-1 computers seems quite reasonable, especially since I'd considered that as a possiblity in the discussions above the RMs. PaleAqua (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually I think the parens might be necessary as I haven't seen "2-in-1 computers" in sources, just plain "2-in-1", along with "2-in-1 PC", "2-in-1 laptop", "hybrid computer", etc. Also I as pointed out by the comment below "2-in-1 computer" used to refer to computer/TV hybrids such as the Macintosh TV. PaleAqua (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 2-in-1 PC is a much better disambiugator it encompass tablets, desktops, laptops, hybrids, etc. A Mac does not have a 2-in-1 device and even then, like Linux, Macs are also PCs.WikIan -(talk) 05:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment remember when some PCs were marketed as 2-in-1 PC and TV combos? Where you could use your all-in-one PC (a computer where the monitor and systembox is one unit, like the original Mac) as a TV set as well as a computer? (and as a TV without turning on the PC part of the device, saving power) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - conditionally While 2-in-1 computer is an improvement over Laplet, I would prefer 2-in-1 PC because PC's have come to mean anything running Windows. This is in great part due to Apple's effective marketing where they compared Mac's to PC's so now there is a clear distinction. If Apple were to come out with a device that had similar capabilities, it would certainly get it's own article and there won't be other vendors to lump in with the article. If Chromebooks had this capability, they would have their own article since it would also be a special kind of capabilities. This article should reflect what is currently in the market and the 2-in-1 PC market is well established with many vendors and device types. My vote is still for 2-in-1 PC but would settle for 2-in-1 computer over the other suggestions of Laplet, 2-in-1, 2-in-1 tablet. Kernel Patch (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've mentioned "Mac's vs. PC's" Apple's campaign and it is a vital point in the current discussion. We know that every Mac is a PC and even every iPad is a PC. Yet the PC term has its roots in the 80's, when IBM came with its IBM PC computer. Since then every compatible device was called PC too, IBM PC compatible at first, then just PC. I think it is time to call all PC devices just computers, the personal word may be dropped, because they are all personal now, and non-personal computers are called servers, mainframes etc. Computer is a natural name, while the PC is associated with the IBM PC era. TranslucentCloud (talk) 09:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the PC term predates the IBM PC and was from the 60 and 70s. PaleAqua (talk) 14:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding? What kind of personal computers existed in 60's? Size of basketball court? TranslucentCloud (talk) 09:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No quite serious, check out the personal computer article for examples if your curious. Granted at the time in addition to "personal computer", the similar terms "microcomputer", "home computer", and "desktop computer" were also commonly used sometimes with "digital" through into the mix. Abbreviations such as PC were common. Commodore's PC line was the Commodore PET ( Personal Electronic Transistor ) while CBM ( Commodore Business Machines ) was their workstation line. With the early 80s "PC" was often part of the name of the products themselves such as the NEC PC-6001 or the IBM PC. But this is getting a bit off topic. PaleAqua (talk) 15:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you're right. TranslucentCloud (talk) 16:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: PLEASE ALSO REFERENCE THE PRIOR CLOSED MOVE REQUESTS

VOTE FOR NAME[edit]

There is clear consensus that this article needs to be renamed, however there is significant disagreement over what exactly to name it. There appears to have been plenty of discussion over the reasons over why to name it certain variations. It's time to put this to a vote as a tool. Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the name/position that you support, and please add a (hopefully brief and well thought out) comment. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed. — Tiggerjay (talk • contribs) 18:59, 2015 October 24 (UTC)

Laplet
Convertible laptop
2-in-1
2-in-1 computer
  • Kernel Patch (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Second choice - I think this is too generic, but is better than any other choices other than 2-in-1 PC.[reply]
2-in-1 (computer)
  • PaleAqua (talk) 00:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC). Third choice[reply]
  • TranslucentCloud (talk) 09:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC). Oppose 2-in-1 computer, because nobody refers to them like that.[reply]
  • Indrek (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC). First choice, as any other meaning of this term (e.g. TV+computer combos mentioned above) is probably obsolete.[reply]
2-in-1 PC
  • Kernel Patch (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC) First choice - I think specificity will help the article retain focus.[reply]
  • PaleAqua (talk) 00:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC) First choice[reply]
  • Strata8 (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC) In the event that Apple releases a 2-in-1, another name can be chosen. For now "2-in-1 PC" better represents the current products on the market.[reply]
  • Indrek (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC). Second choice.[reply]
  • WikIan -(talk) 05:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC) This is what I am voting for: a PC is a personal computer covering tablets, PCs, AND MacBooks (possible Macbook 2-in-1 could be referenced to here).[reply]
2-in-1 laptop
2-in-1 tablet
2-in-1 laplet

Discussion[edit]

  • Comment The above list includes one option that has never been proposed — 2-in-1 laplet —, and excludes one that has been — 2-in-1 (computer) (note the parentheses). You may wish to amend the list accordingly. Indrek (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was a note in the edit section that I was skipping the parenthetical difference for now simply because that would lead to 2x the options. Once the term is selected, I think we can then go after for/against parentheses. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I respectfully disagree. There's only one option that includes parentheses, and at least one editor has explicitly opposed "2-in-1 computer", so it makes sense to have both options from the beginning so people aren't forced to cast votes for options they don't actually agree with. Not that it matters anymore, of course, as the list has been amended already. Indrek (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It got split in this edit which moved my vote. @Kernel Patch:, you might want to check if your vote is in the right place or if you intended to be for both. PaleAqua (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I worry that we are going to get a weariness of commenters if we keep moving the discussion goal posts, this probably all could have been handled in the original discussion as it is not unusual for alternate names and options to be brought up as part of a requested move. As it is we now have similar comments spread across a large number of different threads of comments. While the first requested move has been procedurally closed, I still don't see how any closer is going to be able to avoid reading through all the discussions factor out the duplication etc. This voting might have been useful early on say before the RM, though better research into sources and how the public refers to the devices would have been better, but now I'm not certain we will get the same participation in these later discussions compared to the earlier one. PaleAqua (talk) 04:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed this has turned into a bit of a mess, but we're pushing forward in a much clearer direction than ever before, which a good understanding of each person's preferences. Unfortunately some times there is no clear commonname, as in this situation, so we need to revert to voting. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ready to close? If we consider this section to be part of the open move discussion, then it appears that 2-in-1 PC is the name favored by most people. An admin could close the discussion on that basis. If people believe there are other options still to be considered, can they propose them now? EdJohnston (talk) 04:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sphilbrick, I believe the consensus was reached to move the page to 2-in-1 PC, not 2 in 1 PC. Or I missed some point? TranslucentCloud (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't specify the target, it was filled in, in the template for the move. If the original intention was wrong, it should be easy enough to specify the correct one and we will try again.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please close the RM when you do as moving articles to new titles while an RM is open and in backlog becomes very confusing and a big time waster trying to figure out what's going on. See WP:RMCI Thanks --Mike Cline (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See also User talk:Sphilbrick#2 in 1 PC vs 2-in-1 PC. Looks like someone requested a speedy move ( not sure where to be honest ) and the fact that there was an open RM got missed. A proper close would be appreciated. PaleAqua (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2015 (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.

Plural of 2-in-1[edit]

@TranslucentCloud: The plural of 2-in-1 should not be "2-in-1's", that would be the progressive form as it doesn't fall into the small group of exceptions for using the apostrophe for plural. ( Initialisms where adding an s conflicts with another meaning, etc. ) That said pluralizing "2-in-1" directly probably should be avoided and using phrases like "2-in-1 devices", "2-in-1 laptops", "2-in-1 tablets" or "2-in-1 PCs" ( no apostrophe need there either as PCS and similar are not likely to be confused with PCs in context. ). See English plurals for an overview though it doesn't cover all the common exceptions. Also as the apostrophes were added recently, I'd appreciated if you didn't claim "restored to last stable version" when reverting my revert. PaleAqua (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However there is no strict rule in English how to properly form a plural of such compound nouns, seems like the version without an apostrophe looks clearer. TranslucentCloud (talk) 09:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2-in-1 PCs[edit]

The IP user 2607:fb90:1748:41d6:0:4f:5984:5a01 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has added a long list of 2-in-1 PCs to this article, many of which are REDLINKed and are not likely to meet Wikipedia's notability requirement anytime soon. How should we deal with this? Keep it as it is, delete the list, or move the list to another article? I would prefer the last one. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move, I've no preference either way. Indrek (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is to delete the list, since the vast majority of models in it don't have dedicated articles anyway and I personally cannot see the purpose of listing these models. TranslucentCloud (talk) 09:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"detachable/hybrid" vs "convertible"[edit]

The terms for 2-in-1 PCs and their categories are all over the place, but here is a list of third-party articles that make a (logical) distinction between detachable and convertible 2-in-1 PCs.

http://www.techradar.com/news/mobile-computing/laptops/best-2-in-1-laptops-top-5-hybrid-laptops-reviewed-1258451 "This [2-in-1 form factor] is usually made possible by a detachable design, letting you remove the screen from the rest of the device. Otherwise, some 2-in-1s take a convertible route in which the notebook's hinge can be rotated 360 degrees and then clamshelled for a similar effect."

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2014/03/a-2-in-1-laptop-or-two-devices/index.htm "The complicated, usually metal hinges of convertibles often make these devices heavier than similarly priced laptops ... The Dell XPS 12 Convertible Touch Ultrabook is 3.3 pounds—the same weight as the two other devices combined." "Of course, some 2-in-1s have detachable screens. So when you don't need the physical keyboard, you can leave it at home. But one of the better-reviewed detachable laptops we've reviewed, the Microsoft Surface Pro 2, weighs about 2 pounds even without the keyboard ..."

http://www.computershopper.com/feature/buying-a-convertible-laptop-20-terms-you-need-to-know "A convertible looks like a standard notebook at first glance but can transform into a tablet by either swiveling its screen to lie flat over the keyboard ... or allowing its lid to be opened or folded back a full 360 degrees so the lid and base are back to back ..."

http://www.cnet.com/news/hybrids-vs-convertibles-cnets-field-guide-to-windows-8-hardware/ "The hybrid ... the idea is simple: if there are two pieces that split apart, it's a hybrid." "The convertible ... If it looks like a laptop, and then you can swivel something around and make it more like a tablet, it's a convertible. The key difference between this and a hybrid is that the parts stay together.

http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/63844/convertible-laptop "Definition of: convertible laptop ... A laptop computer that folds into a tablet. The screen swivels around and folds back down, turning the machine into a rectangular slate." "The convertible's screen remains on the unit, whereas the screen on a hybrid laptop is removed to become the tablet. However, the terms "convertible" and "hybrid" are used interchangeably for both kinds of these combo units. 76.254.17.57 (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Light bulb iconB It would be nice somebody could add these links to the article as references. 76.254.17.57 (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article {{advert}} and {{news release}} Tags[edit]

If there are any pointers to the areas of the article concerned by these tags that need fixing, list them here. 75.117.135.225 (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since I see nothing in the article that's related to problems concerned by the tags and there hasn't been any explanation of the purported issues, I'm removing the tags. Drive-by tagging is not helpful. 171.66.208.10 (talk) 02:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 October 2023[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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. No opposition here. Article titling policies (including WP:COMMONNAME) were demonstrated to be in favor of the proposal. (closed by non-admin page mover) estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Convertible laptop → 2-in-1 laptop – Putting Convertible in the name makes the article title imprecise: Convertible refers to a class of laptop in which the keyboard is undetachable, whereas the article covers laptops with both detachable and undetachable keyboards. Movers' rationale was that the previous title "2-in-1 PC" was too tied to the x86 platform because of the use of the term PC. 2-in-1 laptop seems to be the most common collocation (5,520,000 Google hits vs. 2,390,000 results for "2-in-1 PC") and so is the best for being both platform-agnostic and complying with both WP:PRECISION and WP:COMMONNAME. DigitalIceAge (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BegbertBiggs (talk) 14:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 15:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I am ok with either titles, convertible laptop or 2 in 1 laptop. Detachables are also covered in Tablet computer article, so reverse folding is the main focus of this article. Crashed greek (talk) 05:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alternate move to hybrid laptop. It already has more usage in Google Ngrams than the current name and also encompasses all types of laptop-tablets. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Computing has been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 15:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: Second relist - there is a fairly large amount of discussion above that seems to warrant a bit more time ASUKITE 15:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move back to 2-in-1 laptop per nom. That seems to be the most common term for it.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That was not the earlier title. Earlier title was 2-in-1 PC. This new name is suggested in this section by the nom. Crashed greek (talk) 05:42, 7 November 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2-in-1_laptop&oldid=1198349308"