Talk:Surface Pro 3

Resources

For anyone who wants to expand this article, there's a lot of good info at these links:

http://blog.surface.com/2014/05/announcing-surface-pro-3/

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8037/microsoft-surface-pro-3-hands-on-display-performance-preview

Potential topics include:

reasons for redesign: competition with laptop, emphasis on light and thin.

Sections as in the Surface Pro 2 article: Specifications, Release date (May 21 for pre-orders, June 20th for i5 based, Aug 31 for the rest), Accessories (new Surface Pro Pen with OneNote integration, new Type Cover to address complaints).

Obviously, there hasn't been much time to get press reactions. I'd write all this myself, but I haven't edited in forever, and I don't quite understand the citation style anymore. Thanks to anyone who does it.

cupy_52040 (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Possible advertising

Doesn't anyone feel this article is very advertising-heavy? "The cover is must have" or whatever. I mean, come on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.160.230 (talk) 04:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

As for the Type Cover, this accessory is considered as a 'must have' by Microsoft solely. And it's clearly stated in the article, that it's a positioning of the accessory by the Microsoft. Not Wikipedia. Actually it's a fair positioning, because this single accessory will fully transforms this tablet into laptop. But I see that people get being concerned with this phrasing, so I'll just remove it. TranslucentCloud (talk) 09:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2014

The pen is not a Bluetooth pen, per se. Do some quick research and you find that it is a Bluetooth-enabled device that utilizes the standard for its OneNote button. The rest of the pen's functions interact with the device using N-Trig's DuoSense technology, which is in no way, shape, or form dependent upon Bluetooth.

76.174.226.194 (talk) 06:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The pen uses Bluetooth to connect and you can't use the pen without of pairing it first by Bluetooth. Therefore this merely means it is a Bluetooth active pen. I have added a mention about an underlying N-trig DuoSense technology to the appropriate section, thanks for pointing out. TranslucentCloud (talk) 06:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2014

Microsoft Surface Pro 3 i7 supports definitely 3840×2160 at 60 Hz utilizing the DP1.2 MST feature (you need the latest Intel HD5000 drivers). See my posting at http://www.reddit.com/r/Surface/comments/2916ge/surface_pro_3_4k_support/ (Uebernerd)

So please update the wrong sentence: In a single external display mode over DisplayPort, the i5 and i7-based models also support a resolution of 3840×2160 at 30 Hz, known as 4K Ultra HD to In a single external display mode over DisplayPort, the i5 and i7-based models also support a resolution of 3840×2160 at 30 Hz, known as 4K Ultra HD and utilizing a monitor with DP1.2 MST feature a resolution of 3840×2160 at 60 Hz. You can still use the internal display.

I didn't found a post from Uebernerd in the Reddit thread you mentioned and read it in its entirety. Lot of people is struggling to enable 4k@60 on SP3 and most methods, which were used to succeed, are mostly hacks. In most cases it's needed to manually update Intel driver to the version, non-shipped by Microsoft (to the generic Intel version, which is not optimized for Surface Pro 3).

That's strange. Here is the text:

With the latest Intel drivers (3939 from September 19th, 2014) my Microsoft Surface Pro 3 I7 512G properly drives my Dell UP3214Q as one screen 3840x2160 @ 60Hz. No issues so far. Maximizing windows works and the taskbar is correctly located at the bottom.

Steps: 1) Enable DP1.2 at the monitor. See user guide at http://www.dell.com/support/home/us/en/19/product-support/product/dell-up3214q/manuals (see pages 45-47) 2) Connect your Surface Pro 3 with the supplied mini DP to DP cable. 3) Install the latest 64bit Intel display drivers. These are always available at: http://www.station-drivers.com/index.php/outils/Drivers/Intel/HD--and--Iris-Graphics/orderby,4/ If you are still using the original display drivers (pre-installed) you will have to manually install using the "Have Disk" method ==> right click on the desktop. Select Screen resolution ==> Advanced settings ==> Properties (Intel HD Graphics 5000) ==> Driver ==> Update Driver ==> Browse my computer for driver software ==> Let me pick from a list of device drivers on my computer ==> Have Disk ==> Browse ==> now select the extracted folder and go to Graphics and select kit64ib.inf

Therefore, while some methods work for someone, this operation mode isn't supported. Not needed to say, that swapping your Intel driver to something not approved by Microsoft, may decrease a battery life or somehow affect laplet's performance. If there will be official support of this mode from Microsoft, I mean an automatically installable driver in Windows Update, this mode will be listed in the article. TranslucentCloud (talk) 05:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok. The Intel drivers are Microsoft approved drivers (WHQL) and the battery life is NOT decreased. In fact you have more energy saving options by using the Intel control panel. But let's wait for Windows Update drivers.

Yes, WHQL drivers are Microsoft approved, but they are not optimized specifically for Surface Pro 3. These are generic Intel drivers for all devices with Intel CPU/GPU. If you claim, that a battery life is not affected, provide a link to an appropriate research of this issue. TranslucentCloud (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Microsoft released a firmware and driver update. Now 3840×2160 at 60 Hz are possible with original Windows Update drivers. Please update the wrong statement.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Right, January 2015 update did included newer Intel drivers. I will change the article statement regarding single external display resolution. TranslucentCloud (talk) 07:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

OK. WHO CHOSE THE PHOTO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.205.24.191 (talk) 11:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2015

iFixit spells it "repairability" not "reparability". Jsight (talk) 05:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The two words are synonyms, we don't have to use exactly the same spelling as iFixit. Indrek (talk) 07:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 31 March 2015

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: page moved. Ians18 (talk) 02:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

---

Microsoft Surface Pro 3 → Surface Pro 3 – Naming convention, see iPad and iPad Air articles, they do not have the company name in them. Ians18 (talk) 23:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• There is an issue with requesting a move for the article, since this talk page is already Surface Pro 3 w/o Microsoft in the title, the redirect bot thinks that the article itself has already been redirected. So I requested it on the no-redirect Microsoft Surface Pro 3 page to move this article to Surface Pro 3 without the title. Naming convention, see iPad and iPad Air articles, they do not have the company name in them.

Ians18 (talk) 23:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose and WP:SPEEDY close. The relevant naming convention here is WP:COMMONNAME. For the iPad clearly it is what it is. For the Microsoft Surface... well, the device is more commonly referred with the Microsoft prefix because who the heck has heard of a "Surface", much less seen one? Also why do you open multiple RMs for similar proposals? There should be only one, except both should be closed immediately. --В²C ☎ 01:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Born2cycle, do you want to base this article's title off of what you believe is the correct colloquial pattern? Rather, for the sake of uniformity as with iPad and per the Surface website, we move the page. The pages were originally without the Microsoft WP:COMMONNAME in the title. In addition, most websites, and me who actually owns the Pro 3, simply call it the Surface Pro 3. I believe that Surface is the common name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ians18 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Doing searches of news articles seem to indicate the name without the Microsoft prefix with the possible exception of the original Surface is the common name. See my comment at the similar move at Talk:Microsoft Surface 3. I only listed a few matches there but the pattern seems to hold when I continued my search. PaleAqua (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

  I also wonder if the discussions should be merged as there are multiple discussions on the same topic. PaleAqua (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

  The nominator also made a comment at Talk:Microsoft Surface#Naming Convention. Just linking to connect/avoid possible future splits in the discussion. I haven't checked all the links there but do note that one of them ( from 2012 ) does use MS Surface and Microsoft surface in the title/lead. PaleAqua (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

  Note this page has gotten separated the article I have put a request that it get moved back to Talk:Microsoft Surface Pro 3 pending the close of this discussion. PaleAqua (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support as for the reason stated above. Illegal Operation (talk) 07:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Given source usage as provided by PaleAqua and supported by usage in the NY Times cited by yours truly just above, I'm changing from Oppose to Support. --В²C ☎ 16:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The above vote was moved from the discussion for the Surface 3 by a different user, who also struct the oppose vote above. @Born2cycle: ping, just wanted to see if this should be reverted or not. PaleAqua (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Apparently I was able to move it without an admin Ians18 (talk) 02:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

---

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.

Standardize all the Surface articles

As of the current, all the Surface articles are messy: see Surface Pro 3, Surface Pro 2, Surface Pro , Surface 3, Surface 2, Surface RT Each of the sections is a mess and does it own thing.

I propose that all the Surface articles be structured as follow:

• (overview)

• History (section)

• Features (section)
  • Design (subsection)
  • Hardware (subsection)

• Accessories (section)

• Reception (section)

Illegal Operation (talk)

AgreeBut I would make Accessories separate from the Features section and add a "Design" subsection to Features, if necessary like the iPad Air 2 article. Reason being, the accessories are sold separately from the device. Also a timeline could be useful, but I don't know how to make one. Ians18 (talk) 00:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Each of the Surface model does have a very unique design so it only fitting to have a design subsection. I have revised the proposed structured accordingly. Illegal Operation (talk)

As for the timeline, there need to be a template. I don't know where it is. Illegal Operation (talk)

 Disagree Why on Earth you're doing these major things, which are essentially rendering pages into ugly skeletons for the yet-to-be done work before actually get editors' consensus? My experience of editing these articles shows, that there is a very small number of contributors, who do major rewrites/expansions, and your proposed skeletons will hang in the articles for ages (unless you'll go forward and actually fill it with flesh). I consider your proposal not practical, since, just like one responder mentioned, there are too much Surface articles and standardizing them will not make any good, because every article should be unique. Wikipedia is not a technical references database, it is a place for some degree of creativity too. People like to compare Surface articles to iPad articles and this is a fair comparison. Look at the iPad-series articles: there are no similar, each is unique and each is great. And all of them together look consistent. I'm reverting your standardization unless we will come to something more vital than dubious unified structure. TranslucentCloud (talk) 05:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The articles as they are now are shockingly bad. They remind me of when I went to a third world country and saw buildings that were build without any forethoughts. The problem is not so much what is wrong with the new structures (although that can be improved), but rather that it make painfully clear how poorly laid out the articles were. Now, I suspect that there are many others who each want to contribute to one or more of the articles, but are afraid of stir up a hornet's nest (aka the politics of Wikipedia). That is why the plan must be made and executed accordingly. Illegal Operation (talk)

I agree with you on this statement, some of articles are really not impressive (Microsoft Surface, Surface (1st generation)) or plainly awful (Surface Pro). One is pretty good (Surface Pro 3). Here is the point: everybody knows, that there are bad articles. No need to make painfully clear how poorly laid out the articles. You might end with this painfully clear look for ages. If you want to improve articles, which in your opinion are poor, make something creative with them. Not just leave them looking even worse. Of course, to improve the affected articles, there will be required a creative labour of some good editors, and the task to find and persuade them to work is not too easy. TranslucentCloud (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

If you look again at the iPad articles, you'll see that there's a coherence structure shared by all of them. See iPad (1st generation), iPad 2, iPad (3rd generation), iPad (4th generation), iPad Air, and iPad Air 2. Also, I disagree that some of the articles are "pretty good". For example, in the Surface Pro 3 article, why is there a whole section on InstantGo? This should be under Features > Software. Illegal Operation (talk)

I looked again at the iPad-series articles. There are some common parts and there are some specific. For example iPad (3rd generation) have unique Jailbreaking section, iPad (4th generation) — Timeline of iPad models, iPad Air — Design. And instead of complaining about Surface Pro 3's structure, feel free to improve it (for this particular article). Regarding dedicated InstantGo section I can say the following: Surface Pro 3 was a first device with this feature implemented and at the time of its introduction, InstantGo gained some attraction. So some fellow editor created a section; this is not a regular common feature.TranslucentCloud (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

You should look at the iPad articles again carefully: all the articles each has a timeline section. Also, InstantGo may be a "cool" feature, but it doesn't really need its own section. Illegal Operation (talk)

I looked at iPad-series articles again carefully and spotted Timeline section in all of them. TranslucentCloud (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Well we can always put the .{{Under construction|notready=true}} tag. Also we are badly in need of more explanations on the accessories pages. I think what TranslucentCloud is saying is that since there is no content on the "restructured sections" it looks weird to have them there. We can use the Under Construction to explain that. Ians18 (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's one of my points. TranslucentCloud (talk) 10:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: If editors are willing to standardize these pages, I believe there is more to gain than lose in doing so. However, I personally don't think it is of great urgency or importance (consumer products will quickly get forgotten, so I would suggest maintaining/improving the standard of information about the Surface models on the Microsoft Surface page) But I agree that the earlier articles are not of a good standard  NeoGeneric 💬  14:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree, a lot of work should be invested in Microsoft Surface page and recent devices' articles (S3, SP3, SH). After all is good with them, we should improve articles of legacy devices. TranslucentCloud (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

 Question: How many more users are we expecting to join this discussion?

I wonder if there will be any. TranslucentCloud (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Considering it's a holiday weekend for many I'd expect it to be minimal. PaleAqua (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• Seems like a reasonable to try to have some consistency with the section arrangement, but I would suggest avoiding adding empty placeholder sections. If you have content ( even stub-like ) content for them, then that's a framework that can be built on. I also agree with doing just one article at a time. MOS:LAYOUT doesn't really have a recommended section order for computing devices articles that I see ( MOS:BODY ). I'm not too sure though that the layout suggested though is the best. For example, not sure that Hardware ( possibly called Models ) and Design should be nested under features and nearer the top of the article as they are probably some of the more key details that readers will be looking for. History might be better with a slightly different name such as announcement or release etc and towards the end of the article.PaleAqua (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

  Hm. I am not saying that it couldn't be improved, but look at how nice and orderly it looks with some of the content filled in compare to what's available today.

  Surface 3 article with the new layout: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Microsoft_Surface_3&diff=654899308&oldid=654898747

  Surface Pro 3 article with the new layout: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Microsoft_Surface_Pro_3&diff=654881518&oldid=654878346

  Illegal Operation (talk)

  That does like an improvement to the current layout. PaleAqua (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear User:Illegal Operation

For the sake of everything holy to you, don't do a major rewrites without inbeforehand plan/explanations of what you want to do and getting editors' consensus to allow to do as you planned. You're messing with the stable version, cutting off important sections (like External display connectivity). TranslucentCloud (talk) 11:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

First of, when you said "other editors' consent", you mean your consent since other editors are not objecting, but rather are suggesting ways the new layout could be improved. Secondly, I've already addressed your objection. You said that you do not approve of the new way the article is structured because there are too many empty sections. I've already filled those sections with content. They may not be the best, but are better than what's available today. Thirdly, consensus does not mean that every editor has to agree. Illegal Operation (talk)

Also, you said yourself that there is a very small number of contributors who do major rewrites/expansions. I wonder why. Perhaps they do not want to spent their time writing an article to have it be removed even if only one editor disapprove. Perhaps we should all get complacent with the way the articles are. After all, why change things? Let's just fix spellings and grammar here and there and we are good. /sarcasm Illegal Operation (talk)

Dear TranslucentCloud, Wikipedia does not require any one persons consensus or any consensus for that matter for restructuring if it improves the article. I agree we should not have blank sections, but we should not simply revert them either. Uniformity will definitely help the articles. Ians18 (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe we do need to come to an agreement first, but instead of reverting the changes we can be a little more accepting of each other's edits. I know it is difficult seeing your edits being changed (TranslucentCloud) or reversed (Illegal Operation), but (and I'm not trying to sound corny) we can try to be open to a restructuring. One thing I don't get however is the "laplet", is that even a real word/term? It should be a 2-in-1 as Microsoft calls it, or a tablet. They also call it a "Surface" as if it was its own category. Ians18 (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, guys. I understand a discontent arising after a lot of your work had reverted. This at times may feel really no good.

When I say other editors' consent I don't mean my consent, but often happens that it is my consent which is only provided, and other editors aren't around. Unfortunately that means, that it is my opinion which need to be taken into consideration. If we get more editors, we get more of divergent consent. I may suggest to you both to look-up Surface Series-articles' revision history, determine major contributors and invite them to discussion.

Regarding empty sections. User:Illegal Operation did a job to fill in the newly created sections, but at the same time managed to demolish a good sections. Look at the External display connectivity section, it's good and a lot of work has been invested in it. If you guys feel it is not really relevant here, why just erase it instead of moving to the right relevant place?

Before any major articles restructuring there need to be editors' consent. Let's agree on the structure and then collaborate on the content. What is not relevant, but valuable, should be moved to where it is relevant.

Regarding small number of contributors who do major rewrites/expansions. This is not because there is a lot of draconian censors reverting everything on sight. This is because Surface are not that popular as iPad. The world is not really care of Surface yet.

Look at User:Illegal Operation, for example. You came here (to editing of Surface articles) in the time of the Surface 3 release. You didn't care before. Obviously this release did some media traction to the Surface brand, so you and others started to care. Maybe this traction will attract more editors. So, not the 'censorship' and reverts keep editors from editing. They mostly just don't care.

User:Ians18 moved some of Surface-series articles, discarding 'Microsoft' in their title, but only those, which he was able to move without administrator's help. I agree, involving administrator is a bit more time consuming, than to press three keys on a keyboard, but thanks to you now we have non-consistent titles. Why start do something good and do not manage to finish it? Actually I've tried to finish your work, but without particular success (someone challenged the moves and they got reverted). I suggest you to finish it yourself, if you really care and not pretend to care about Surface-series articles.

Last, regarding laplet term. It is a bit unusual. Media (and Intel) calls these devices 2-in-1's, Microsoft officially calls them a tablet, that can replace your laptop, or just Surface (pretending it is a distinct device class). Do you know how Microsoft calls Surfaces unofficially? Taplet. There is no 2-in-1 article on Wikipedia, so if you think it better fit than laplet, feel free to create one and change all affected articles. Of course, everybody else should agree it is better fit. If you ask me, I'll tell that 2-in-1 term is a bit awkward and ambiguous. The device class is so new, that there is just no term on which world universally agreed. Maybe the term is yet-to-be coined.

As always, I'm open to discussion. TranslucentCloud (talk) 12:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

First of, the way you revert my edit clearly violate the principle of BRD. The principle said to only revert if and only if the edit is not an improvement. Just because you don't like it is not a good reason.

Also, I point out that a consensus does not mean that everyone has to agree and that you violate BRD.

The external display has been moved. The content is in the hardware section.

Another point I want to make: I came to Wikipedia to read about the Surface Pro 3 and found the article disorganized. Then I look at other Surface articles and found them disorganized so I decided on restructuring the articles. Just because the Surface 3 was announced recently has little to do with it. Illegal Operation (talk)

You have been bold, got reverted, but contrary to BRD principle, there was no constructive discussion, as you rejected to participate in it. The cycle (bold, revert, discuss) was broken after the phase two (revert). Therefore it is clear that it is you, who violate the principle.

Since you are uncooperative, closed to discussion and false accusing, I think it is not worth to spent my time to try to cooperate collectively (with you). Since now, I will act on my own and hope that other capable editors will join me. TranslucentCloud (talk) 07:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I moved some Surface articles because for the Surface 3 and Surface Pro 3, for some reason, are not able to be moved without admin permissions. 2-in-1 is more suitable (used on windows.com and by many OEMs). If you think I only came here after the Surface 3 hype, you are sadly mistaken. I initiated the restructuring of the Microsoft Surface page, added images, and renamed all the articles and splits in the first place. I was here before and worked on these pages.

I also own a Surface, Surface Pro 3, Touch Cover, Touch Cover 2, Surface Pro 3 Type Cover, went into the Microsoft store to exchange my SP 3 for a new one after a kickstand issue, and showed it off to my friends and family. In addition, I constantly follow Surface news. Still think I'm not dedicated? User:TranslucentCloud, what/who do you define as the editors with decisive power? I would consider that to be Codename Lisa (someone should loop her in the discussion), me, and anyone else who has contributed like you and Illegal Operation. We honestly need no other consent. The goal of Wikipedia? Be a source of constantly updated information about everything and everyone that anyone can contribute to, no matter their knowledge. Ians18 (talk) 02:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Another note I created Surface (1st generation) as well. Ians18 (talk) 02:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't said you are new to the series. In fact, I checked your contributions and the latest one dated May 2014, if I recall correctly.

P.S. Thanks for finishing your work on titles names. TranslucentCloud (talk) 07:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Wifi Issue

Investigated the Wifi issue. Reports from the site originally used as a citation for the issue seem to state that the January firmware update fixed this. Jamesfx3 (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I have heard about this too, but I have never had this on my Surface Pro 3 so I don't really know.Ians18 (talk) 01:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Revisit

So apparently there's a bit of a dispute over the addition of the following content:

Some users have Wi-Fi issues. Microsoft has tried multiple times to fix them with no success.

Since the back-and-forth reverts have basically crossed into edit war territory now, I'd like to invite @TranslucentCloud and the anon editor to discuss the issue here.

The source given is from November 2014, which in my opinion is recent enough that we cannot automatically assume the issue to no longer be relevant; at the very least it deserves some investigation. It may very well be that the problem has been fixed in a firmware update (I haven't experienced it myself), but even then the issue seems significant enough that it would warrant a mention in the article (in past tense, if necessary). Has anyone found any more recent sources? Indrek (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I have this issue. But I know some other people do not. It seems to be related to the combination of a defect of the Marvell AVASTAR Wi-Fi chip and some base stations. There is no problem with other computers or phones. Microsoft has said multiple times that the issue was fixed, but it is not. I think if we let someone hide this issue, then Microsoft is not going to ever fix it. Please, dot let people to hide this.

I get where you're coming from, but here's the thing - it's not Wikipedia's mission to "set the record straight" in this, or any other matter. To put it very simply, Wikipedia summarises notable information from reliable sources in a non-biased manner. I do believe that you and a number of other users are experiencing this issue, but anecdotal evidence is not enough to establish notability. Additionally, Reddit doesn't qualify as a reliable source since its content is self-published by users.

Now the current source is a pretty good one, but all it establishes is that the issue existed at some point in the not-so-distant past. Have you found any reliable sources showing that the issue still exists now? Indrek (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

If an issue is not fixed, published sources do not make an article every month about it. Wikipedia does not require updated references for content, otherwise we would probably have to remove a lot of Wikipedia content. If you want to hide this issue you should find an independent source stating that the issue was fixed. Please, make Wikipedia better by improving it, not removing content.

Conversely, if the issue is fixed with a routine firmware update, and the issue in question is real for a small group of consumers, it is likely there will not be any article about it. It may not worth a dedicated article. Should we collect all these minor non-up-to-date-confirmed issues in the Wikipedia? I'm sure not. These issues should be fixed by Microsoft service technicians; it does not make any encyclopedic sense. TranslucentCloud (talk) 07:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

You are suggesting this is a software issue, but that has not been confirmed. In fact, I believe this is a hardware issue. This issue may be minor for you, but it is a major issue for the people that suffer it. Are you suggesting that because this issue does not affect everyone it should be hidden? Why do you want to hide the issue?

Please stop suggesting that we're trying to "hide" something, that runs contrary to Wikipedia's principle of always assuming good faith. We're simply trying to improve the article. And on Wikipedia, that sometimes involves removing content that fails to meet the site's standards (e.g. not notable, not relevant, or not verified by reliable sources). I understand this can seem unjust, especially if the content in question concerns something that affects you personally, but to paraphrase what I said above — Wikipedia editors aren't truth finders. Instead, we're concerned with verifiability. So, are there any more recent sources than the one currently given, that verify this issue as still relevant? Because if not, I don't think the paragraph should be written in the present tense. I'm not convinced it should be removed altogether, though, as I do get the impression that this is/was a pretty major issue. That's why I'd like to figure out if it's been fixed or not. Indrek (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I am personally do not want to hide anything: I am neither a Microsoft employee, nor want to do anything to boost Surface sales. The one thing I care here is to maintain some articles, this included. I do not think every software or hardware bug should have been noted. And for people experiencing some hardware bug, here is a little suggestion: instead of trying to make it to the Wikipedia (this will barely help you), bring your device to the service center. If the device is legitimately purchased, you'll even get the service for free. TranslucentCloud (talk) 07:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

If the fellow anonymous editor (or anyone else) does not want to participate in this discussion, I propose to stick to the policy, proposed by me, and to revert his edit regarding the Wi-Fi issue. Anyone? TranslucentCloud (talk) 12:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Given the lack of convincing arguments for keeping that section, I'm not fundamentally opposed to removing it for now. If and when newer sources are found that describe the issue as widespread and still relevant, it can always be added back. Indrek (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Section removed. TranslucentCloud (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

References