Talk:List of Windows Phone 8 devices

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 October 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Removable battery

I think it should say whether a device has a removable battery or not, it`s a very important feature for many people.--Hontogaichiban (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manufacturer & Model columns to replace the first 2

Wouldn't it make more sense if you had 2 columns in the beginning with just 'Manufacturer' and 'Model' rather than 'Product name' and 'Manufacturer'. Esebi95 (talk) 08:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was like that at one point, but someone took out all the shortened links TMV943 (talk) 06:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does it really matter? It can still be done, can't it?Esebi95 (talk) 07:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, have no objection, just leave a note here so hopefully the guy doesn't do it again without proper reason TMV943 (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HTC Titan

HTC Titan is rumored to be 1.5GHz, but the CPU Clock Speed for its MSM8255 is 1GHz. BoR|S 07:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boltyansky (talk • contribs)

It has the MSM8255T which is the same as MSM8255, just clocked higher. Illegal Operation (talk) 04:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HSPA+ is not 4g (USA operators)

really even thought the ITU say its now 4g, 3g/H/H+ is not 4g, not unless they use more channels and most do not, only LTE or Wimax (dead thought) is real 4g (most places i get H and H+ just cant do more then 0.5-3MB/s) did not want to edit the Article with out input, as I do not agree with ITU siding with mobile operators in the USA that Lack an LTE network that is 4G (as you do not see fake 4g ads in the uk with HSPA+) stating that 4g with HSPA+ (fake 4g) as you need to be quite close to the tower to get them speeds and not have a lot of users on that tower Leexgx (talk) 04:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ram column?

With the revised hardware requirements for Tango allowing for low end devices with 256mb of ram instead of requiring 512mb, and the likelihood that future high end Windows Phone devices will follow other smart phones and have 1GB, should a ram column be added to differentiate these models as they are added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.106.161 (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think once that requirement happens the column would be useful, but i think MS should make sure that the Requirements stay as they are or higher (what could do with been put back on is the network type GSM or CDMA only, 3g HSDPA\HSPA , real 4g LTE USA/EU Leexgx (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gyroscope column

Given the fact that some WP devices have gyroscope hardware while others don't support it, should we have Gyroscope column? To confirm, a free app called "Inside Information" will display Supported/Not Supported under "sensors" tab. --Pak1standby (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you guys for supporting the idea! 8-) --Pak1standby (talk) 01:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Windows 8 devices

Hi, I have created the wiki article for List of Windows 8 devices. Please chip in to validate and improve the information. Thanks in anticipation! --Pak1standby (talk) 12:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ZTE N880E

Where on the internet does it say the ZTE N880E can run WP? I searched XDA-dev and there was nothing there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.190.177 (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Table sorting

I've just removed the two-row header on the first table on the page as sorting was broken for at least half of the columns (sort order incorrect). If someone has a better way of fixing this, please go ahead and implement it - just test that sorting works afterwards! Thanks, [stwalkerster|talk] 14:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There were a couple of other issues with the sorting tables.

The "RAM" and "Storage" columns were sorted alphabetically - which means that the "512 MB" were sorted under "5". I've resolved that with |data-sort-type=number and with a |data-sort-value="0.5 GB" parameter.
I removed the second level of headings for the other table.
I've also used |data-sort-value= to sort the entries with two sizes of storage after the smaller one.

A better solution for the headings levels may be useful, but this will work. Huon (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose that List of Windows Phone 8.1 devices be merged into List of Windows Phone 8 devices. I think that the content in the 8.1 devices article can easily be explained in the context of Windows Phone 8 in general, and both articles combined are of a reasonable size that the merging of them will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned.

Here's what i see: the List of Windows Phone 7 devices list doesn't have separate pages for 7.0/7.5/7.8 devices. Since all of these devices can run the 7.8 OS if the carrier allows it, all devices are listed on one page, split into sections based on which OS is included with the device. Likewise, i believe the 8.0 and 8.1 lists should be merged to make it easier to compare devices. i bought a Lumia 625 because it has a superior CPU (less cores, but more power) compared to the Lumia 635. In fact, all but one of the devices on the 8.1 list appear to use a budget Snapdragon 200 SoC with a Cortex-A7 CPU, not the more powerful Krait used by 8.0 devices. The 8.1 devices list is very homogeneous in other aspects, too. The screen size is 4 inches for all but one 480p devices, and it's 4.7 or 5 inches for all 720p and 1080p devices so far. Storage is either 4 or 8 GB on all devices so far, except for the Lumia 930.

To me, such homogeneity makes the Windows Phone 8.1 list non-notable on its own and further justifies a merge with the Windows Phone 8.0 list. It would make life easier by providing an accurate and extensive one-stop destination to compare all devices compatible with the Windows Phone 8.1 OS. -- True Tech Talk Time (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Windows Phone 8.1 is an completely different OS from Windows Phone 8.0, which was decided on by consensus in this debate back in April: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Windows_Phone_8#Merger_proposal. Merging the device pages for WP8 and WP8.1 assumes that 8.1 is just another version of 8.0, which is false if you look at a complete list of features and Microsoft's own advertising, and goes against the consensus that was already agreed upon by many editors. The similarity of processors is irrelevant, because we are listing devices that ship with a specific OS, not a specific hardware set. Also, the fact that WP8 handsets are automatically upgradeable to WP8.1 does not mean that both device sets should be listed in the same location. When Windows Phone "9" is released, should we also list all of its devices with WP8.0 devices just because all phones which originally ran WP8.0 are upgradeable to Windows Phone "9"? Furthermore, the consensus achieved back in 2011 and 2012 among the community was that WP7.5 and WP7.8 were merely versions of the WP7 OS, whereas WP8.1 is a totally different platform from WP8. Neither WP7.5 nor WP7.8 have its own articles on Wikipedia, but WP8.1 does. Gamer9832 (talk) 18:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support but call it "List of Windows Phone 8.x devices". WP:CCC. Merger is a valid action because the similarity of context and size of the articles. We already have a Windows 8 editions that works for Windows 8.1 too. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I agree with Gamer9832, Microsoft already clarified on every Microsoft.com webpage featuring Windows Phone that Windows Phone 8 and WP8.1 are different mobile OS and merging the two lists will be an issue. I also oppose Codename Lisa's idea of comparing Windows 8 and Win8.1 to WP8 and WP8.1 along with renaming the "List of Windows Phone 8 devices" to the proposed post-merger name if the merger happens. Why? 'Cause Windows 8.1 is a update to Win8 and not a upgrade while Windows Phone 8.1 is a upgrade from WP8 and is not a update. Kyrios320 (talk) 01:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's also the question of notability. All of the devices (other than "Quad-core 1080p") use a quad-core (Hisense Nana is dual-core) 1.2 GHz processor. Only four of the 33 devices feature 16 or 32 GB of storage, as opposed to 4 or 8 GB. Only two feature a camera with more than 8 megapixels. With many cookie-cutter devices, few of these phones are noteworthy to stand on their own merit, and that is why i believe that most 8.1 devices are not notable enough to warrant a separate list. --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "List of Windows Phone 8.1 devices" article is the only comprehensive and almost complete list of WP 8.1 devices in the Web. Since 8.1 is relatively new and most of the devices listed has yet to be released, this can serve as an exceptional buyer's guide for anyone interested in joining the platform. Of course, this is an encyclopedia, not a buying advisor, but considering the recency of WP 8.1 and the great differences between it and WP 8, I see no reason of merging it into a single article, at the moment. 2 years later, maybe. Rhodion (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop merging different phones into a series

In the Windows Phone 8.1 devices page, Lumia 630 and it's variants viz 635, 636 and 638 are listed together which makes sense since they are the same phone with only spec changes. Similar variants were seen for Lumia 800 (800c), Lumia 1520 (1520.3) and so on. But this page clubbed totally different phones together like 820 and 822. The two have different designs, specs, releases and model. Please do not club them together. 925, and 928 are not variants of 920. Samsung Ativ SE and S Neo are different. Lumia 520 is different from 525 as well as they had independent releases though the same design. The changes are reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.248.161.59 (talk) 10:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are not "totally different" as you describe it. The 520, 521 and 525 are all part of the same series. The design is the same, and the only difference with the 525 is the 1 GB of RAM and a later release date. There is only one Wikipedia article for all of these phones, hence why i believe the list should have just one all-inclusive entry as well. As for the 810, 820 and 822, we are faced with a similar situation. They are merely carrier variants available on T-Mobile, AT&T and Verizon respectively. The form factor may face minor changes, but so does the LG Optimus One, which lists more than a dozen variants but in one article rather than many. Much like the 520 series, the 810 series all have the same specs and release date, with two minor exceptions: the 820 model uses a 0.3 MP front-facer instead of the 1.2 found on others, and the 822 has 16 GB of storage instead of 8 GB. Without elaborating, the 920 series also consists of carrier variants with virtually identical specs. Let's not forget that countries like Canada almost never sell carrier-specific phones; all phones usually work on all top ten networks. For all of these reasons, i believe that carrier variants as separate entries are redundant and should instead be merged into one entry. --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this reply. 520 and 521 are definitely the same phone, but 525 clearly is still a different one and this is indicated by the separate device launch of this phone. There are markets which received both 520 and 525 (e.g China and India). As mentioned earlier, phones such as 800T and 1520.3 are carrier/regional variants as they are exactly identical (in form factor) and were never launched as separate products. 822 and 810 aren't carrier variants, they were launched as such and not as Lumia 820 or it's variants (there is no official statement to prove this). They have different form factors. Same goes for 925 and 928. Lumia Icon for e.g was launched as 929 in China and so we cannot call them separate phones. I feel if the form factor varies, it should be considered a separate device. On the other hand if the form factor is same, it should be classified as different if and only if it has a separate launch. 525 classifies here, 636 does not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.59.48 (talk) 15:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's my pleasure to have friendly discussions on Wikipedia. Gamer9832, who disagrees with my idea of merging the 8.0 and 8.1 list, has reverted your edits to split the 520 and 810 series. It still leaves the 920 series to be decided upon. i've nominated the articles for the 925 and 928 to be merged into the 920 article. i still believe the LG Optimus One article serves as a good basis for this, and so does the Samsung Galaxy S series, which has 21 variants grouped under five main releases: five original S variants; four S II variants; three S III variants; five S 4 variants; four S 5 variants). Perhaps a Request For Comment can be called if both of us agree to disagree. By the way, what do you think of the footnotes under the "Dual-core 480p" section? i hope we can find some common ground when editing this list. Sincerely, --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 02:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the 810, 820 and 822 phones should be separated because they're really different in terms of design. The difference between the 822 and the 820 is as stark as the one between the 925 and 920. The 822 also has its own article. The 920 series should definitely be separated, because the 925 has aluminum construction instead of polycarbonate, which makes a huge difference in terms of weight. It was also not a regional variant (which the 521 is) but a true refresh. Nokia intended it to be a lighter successor (mid-gen refresh) to the 920, and it's a different model entirely. The same goes for the 525-- it's also a mid-gen refresh to the 520 and should be considered a different phone in my view. Gamer9832 (talk) 06:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Both Huawei ascend w2 and Samsung Ativ Odyssey have vanished. I think the article needs some serious edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.248.161.59 (talk) 11:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Windows Phone 8 devices. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140806220250/http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/cell-phones/SPH-I800HNASPR to http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/cell-phones/SPH-I800HNASPR

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) 05:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]