Jump to content

Talk:Surface (2012 tablet)

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

Contested deletion

[edit]

This article should not be speedy deleted as having no substantive content, because it is a work in progress, not completed yet. --Ians18 (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 April 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: no consensus. I would have suggested starting a discussion on moving it to Surface (tablet) as a couple of editors suggested this, but it seems one has already started below. Number 57 17:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surface (1st generation) → Surface RT – Name as used by the manufacturer --Relisted. Steel1943 (talk) 02:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC) Illegal Operation (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose See The Verge, Neowin, and Tom's Hardware. Also a look at Microsoft's Website, which shows that Surface is the name for the original Surface RT. Ians18 (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Microsoft still refers to it as Surface RT [1] and even the one for sale is still call Surface RT [http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Surface-32GB-RT/dp/B009XNBFJK] [2] [3] Illegal Operation (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the Surface for sale (updated listing) on [http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Surface-64GB-Tablet-Titanium/dp/B00AA04LUA/ref=sr_1_10?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1427997180&sr=1-10&keywords=Surface|Amazon],[http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Surface-Rt-64GB-Tablet/dp/B00ET0H9R4/ref=sr_1_11?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1427997180&sr=1-11&keywords=Surface], Newegg. Ians18 (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no Surface RT (2nd generation) as that is just called the [Surface 2]. Surface RT was the old name, and based on the above articles I suggest we keep the name. I have edited it to say formerly Surface RT. Ians18 (talk) 17:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ( "Surface RT" per NCDAB natural disambiguation vs parenthetical disambiguation even though not the most common name. ) In regards to the common name, I haven't finished looking into enough sources yet as searching for the original Surface is a bit harder without biasing the results. I notice that the BBC ( to pick a mainstream news source ) refers to it as the original Surface, the RT Surface and the Surface RT in some of the later 2013 articles. [4]. Most of their newer articles seem to only mention the 2 and 3 or the product family as a whole. The New York Times uses just the Surface or Microsoft's Surface. [5]. Picking a tech site, the Verge used "The Microsoft Surface" in the review title, and started both prose with the full version as well before switching to using "the Surface" for the rest of the text. [6] [7]. The box I got my Surface in just says Surface for the name, specifically "Surface + Touch Cover" ( where Surface is in a heavier weight then the rest of the text ) with additional mentions of Windows RT on other sections of the box, but what really matters is what the device is commonly called. One confusion is both the product family and the original tablet are called the Surface. I can find lots of articles talking about the Surface in causal mention such as this one, but they are talking about the product family. In someways it seems like the use of the Surface RT name was mostly to provide an easy way to talk about the non-pro versions of the tablet vs the original Surface Pro and as the 2 and 3 series came out that became less important as there were easier ways to distinguish them. I saw more occurrences of Surface RT as I went further back, relative to the more recent articles so was leaning oppose, but natural disambiguation is also preferred to parenthetical which would supports using either the Microsoft Surface or the Surface RT as the name. See WP:NCDAB. As Microsoft Surface is being used for the product family, Surface RT seems to be the best choice even if it is not the most common name. PaleAqua (talk) 08:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
no Disagree The article's title should be based off the common name Surface, if anything we should rename it to Surface (tablet), otherwise keep it Surface (first generation) Ians18 (talk) 06:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The common name is quite likely Surface. However there is already an article at that name which is very likely the primary topic, so we have to disambiguate. WP:TITLE the Wikipedia policy on naming states the following at WP:NATURALDIS If natural disambiguation is not possible, add a disambiguating term in parentheses, after the ambiguous name. As natural disambiguation ( If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title ) is an option here we should not use parenthetical disambiguation. "Surface RT" and "Microsoft Surface" both are natural disambiguations. As Microsoft Surface also refers to the product family and is likely the primary topic for that name it pretty much leaves "Surface RT" as available natural disambiguation choices. Note that just because we end up using one title or the other does not mean that the article has to has to say that is the official name or anything. PaleAqua (talk) 07:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's do a parallel. In some parts of the country, the laundry detergent is commonly called "soap". Now, assuming that "soap" is a name more common than "laundry detergent", should the article be called "soap (clothes washing agent)" or "laundry detergent"? I believe the latter is more appropriate even if it's the less common name. Illegal Operation (talk)
Exactly. PaleAqua (talk) 01:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except that it isn't. Surface RT was the former name for Surface and although there are remnants of it around, that is no longer the name and many sites (as cited above by me) show that there is a new name. By renaming the article to the old name, we would be misguiding the readers. We already addressed it was called Surface with Windows RT, then Surface RT, and now Surface. It also breaks the naming structure with Surface 2 (following Surface) as the Surface 2 is not Surface RT 2. Soap and Laundry detergent are region based colloquial terms that are different. Please take these points into consideration. Ians18 (talk) 04:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Common names and official names are two different things. Please see WP:UCRN as well as the other parts of the article title and related policies I linked earlier. If we didn't have to compete with the topological term Surface, we would just use the name "Surface". "Surface 2" has no competing article with the same name that takes precedence ( i.e. it is the primary topic. ) Just because we can't use the most commonly recognizable name for Surface doesn't mean we have to do the same with Surface 2 etc. BTW one of the reasons that parentheticals are often used with Apple products is those are part of the common names, Apple will often name stuff " (1st generation)","(Mid 2014)", "(Late 2012)" or the like and the names are commonly used. If "(1st generation)" was commonly used to talk about the original Windows RT version of the Surface then I could see keeping the current name, but I don't see any evidence of that. PaleAqua (talk) 06:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at the iPad (3rd generation) and you will see the following: "The third generation iPad (originally marketed as The new iPad, retrospectively marketed as the iPad 3", then look at the iPad first generation article where Apple just referred to it as "iPad". Lastly look at iPad (fourth generation) where it states, "The fourth generation iPad (originally marketed as iPad with Retina display, retrospectively marketed as the iPad 4)). As you can see, Apple never referred to it as the fourth or third generations, rather it is more commonly known as the iPad 3 and iPad 4. However, the article (to keep consistency and to keep the original name "iPad") has not renamed them to iPad 3 and 4. Also the iPad airs are not called "Air (tablet)" and "Air 2 (tablet)" even though those are the most common names and iPad is such a well known term. So I am also not consideration Surface (tablet), but if we have to rename, I would go with that or "Surface (1st gen)". Ians18 (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's look at an example. Apple did referred to the iPad (3rd generation) as the "new iPad". The problem with this name is that it is a source of confusion. Let's assume that Microsoft had marketed the Surface Pro 2 as the "new Surface Pro". The article name "new Surface Pro" would be inappropriate because someone could interpret the name to mean the Surface Pro 3 which is the newest device in the Surface Pro line. Illegal Operation (talk)
Yes, however "The iPad with Retina Display" was also used by Apple, not in the article. Surface RT could be confused with Surface 2 because Surface 2 is also a Surface RT device, see IFixit. The thing is, Surface RT is not the correct name and Surface (first generation) is more clear to which version. Ians18 (talk) 04:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@In ictu oculi: It's essentially a tablet computer with a detachable keyboard. (I have not looked at the RM-nominated article in the least, so I'm saying this out of my own personal knowledge without knowing how this article is written.) Steel1943 (talk) 01:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed tablet is how I would describe it, though some use the neologism laplet. If it is not moved to Surface RT, Surface (tablet) seems like an alternative, note though that page currently redirects to the product family article instead of this page. I still prefer natural disambiguation however. PaleAqua (talk) 01:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The first generation Surface is a plain tablet, not a laplet, because it cannot replace an actual laptop (it run a stripped down version of Windows). The natural name for this article is Surface (tablet). Conversely, Surface Pro article should not be renamed to Surface Pro (tablet), because it is already obvious, that it is about a tablet (there are no homonyms like in this case). TranslucentCloud (talk) 11:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I moved this page to "Surface (first generation)" per WP:ORDINAL before noticing this discussion. The Surface Pro article should be moved to Surface Pro (first generation) to avoid ambiguity. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 22:32, 28 May 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.

Standardize all the Surface articles

[edit]

All of the Surface articles are currently very incoherent.

I propose that we standardize on a common structure.

See: Talk:Microsoft Surface Pro 3#Standardize all the Surface articles Illegal Operation (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support A coherent article structure, will make it easier for someone who is looking for information on the devices. Ians18 (talk) 00:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
no Disagree For those looking into technical information of devices, the infobox is sufficient. One should not transform articles' bodies into huge infoboxes. TranslucentCloud (talk) 06:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 June 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: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Surface (first generation) → Surface (tablet) – The natural name for this article is Surface (tablet) to distinguish from a main Surface article. TranslucentCloud (talk) 11:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your support or objections goes here. TranslucentCloud (talk) 11:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second choice support per my comments in the above discussion. Still prefer natural disambugiation. PaleAqua (talk) 14:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose all the various generations of Surfaces are tablets. This is ambiguous disambiguation in the extreme. Indeed Surface (tablet) doesn't even redirect here, it points to Microsoft Surface which is about the entire family of Surface tablets. That's not even in consideration of the topic of the surface of a tablet which is equally plausible, if we were to have such coverage (and may indeed be considered the equivalent to the topic of the case of a tablet, or the screen of a tablet) -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 12:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The 1st generation tag is there to make it named differently than the overall Surface article that refers to all models of the tablet. Also, the proposed new name is confusing since it doesn't point to a specific model. --Frmorrison (talk) 13:47, 18 June 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.

Discussion at Talk:Microsoft Surface

[edit]

There is a discussion related to how to refer to the subject of this page at the talk page of the Microsoft Surface page. PaleAqua (talk) 04:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Former names

[edit]

While doing some edits to this article, I looked into the names this device has had previously, and to my surprise there were more than I thought:

  • Originally announced as Surface for Windows RT in June 2012 [8]
  • Renamed to Surface With Windows RT slightly before release, in October 2012 [9] and launched under this name [10]
  • Shortened to Surface Windows RT in January 2013 [11]
  • Shortened again to Surface RT (when?)
  • Finally renamed to simply Surface in October 2013 [12]

Have I missed any? Does anyone know when MS started calling the tablet "Surface RT"? And which former names deserve mention in the article? I'd say probably only "Surface With Windows RT" (as a lot of the first reviews used this name) and "Surface RT".

Thoughts? Indrek (talk) 11:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Depends more on which names were commonly used when talking about the devices instead of just what were the official names. Though I pretty much agree that "Surface with Windows RT" and "Surface RT" should both be mentioned. One question phrases like "Surface with Windows RT" raise question on if they are actually the name or descriptive disambiguations. Consider article for "the new iPad" which is now known as either the iPad 3 or iPad (3rd generation) depending on source which uses "marketed as" avoiding that distinction similar to what we say now about Surface RT. PaleAqua (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Surface with/for Windows RT" do sound like descriptive disambiguations, considering the Surface Pro was originally also called "Surface for Windows 8 Pro". But since it was used in official announcements as well as in secondary sources, I'd say it qualifies as an actual name of the device.
Thanks for your reply. I'll change the "Surface for ..." to "Surface with ..." in the lede. Indrek (talk) 07:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 September 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: No consensus. See also the prior discussion at Talk:Microsoft Surface#Reaching Consensus (Surface RT naming). Microsoft has not identified these products in a consistent way. In October 2013 they removed the name 'RT' from the entire product line. There's also the issue that the name 'RT' was for a time associated with both the first and second generation. As noted by User:Wiklan below, 'Surface RT' is ambiguous. The OP's premise that 'another common name for the article topic exists' doesn't seem to hold. The plain name 'Surface' is NATURAL but it's ambiguous, and the Microsoft device is unlikely to be considered the primary topic of 'surface'. There exist other things called surfaces. Surface (tablet) doesn't help because all generations of this product can be considered tablets. EdJohnston (talk) 00:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Surface (first generation) → Surface RT – Per WP:NATURAL, article titles should generally not use parenthetical disambiguation if another common name for the article topic exists. Surface RT is also a very common name for the article topic, and should be used instead of the current naming. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 07:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 07:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. sstflyer 16:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging editors involved in the most recent discussion: WikIan, TranslucentCloud, Josh the Nerd, TheHoax, ViperSnake151. Indrek (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for the article title per my reasoning in the previous discussions, I.e. WP:NATURAL as natural disambiguations are preferred to parenthetical. PaleAqua (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The a part of the discussions over at Talk:Microsoft Surface is how to refer to the tablet inside the articles in which is a different questions than what this article should be titled. PaleAqua (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • A few concerns have been brought up about old vs new name in other comments. Not sure that really applies here, what matters is if the name is commonly used. Checking the Microsoft site and other sites have shown that "Surface RT" is still used so not sure we can call it an old name, just a less common name then "Surface" by itself. Secondly concerns have been brought up about possible confusion with Surface 2 when using Surface RT. If the Surface 2 was commonly also called Surface RT I could see that as an issue but I haven't seen anything but anecdotal evidence. I vaguely recall seeing Surface RT 2 once somewhere, and wouldn't be surprised that the Surface 2 being described somewhere as a Surface RT class device; but am not convinced that is strong enough to say that this tablet is the primary term for "Surface RT". Finally ( and I believe I mentioned this elsewhere in a reply ), the issue of the article title and the term used in prose do not have to be the same. We don't use "Orange (colour)" or "Orange (fruit)" through the articles on the color or the fruit just because that happens to be the title of the article. Likewise the consider the email / newsreader client Thunderbird. The article is at "Mozilla Thunderbird" as there is no primary topic for "Thunderbird" ( it's a disambiguation page ), yet the prose of the article refers to it mostly as just the Thunderbird. I don't see how naming this article "Surface RT" would force us to use that term throughout the article itself. PaleAqua (talk) 03:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a move to something (anything?) else per WP:WTF. The other articles called "Surface" have names like Surface (magazine), Surface (TV series), Surface (band) and Surface (Circle album). How does "first generation" disambiguate this article from those or give the reader any idea what the article is about? —  AjaxSmack  23:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose. The Surface RT is extremely unpopular name of the first generation Surface. The Surface family didn't get mass attention till the Pro 3 was released, and when it was, there was Surface 2 already, so the most people, who took interest in Surface family did not actually care for the first Surface. Still, most people not only do not know what the original Surface monikers are, but also what is the thing the original Surface is. Implying that Surface RT is the most common name of an extremely unpopular and rare device is like saying that the most common way to address Fiat 508 is 508 Balilla.
If not Surface (first generation), I might suggest Surface (tablet) (see above), and I offered to do this once, but consensus was not in favor of this. TranslucentCloud (talk) 09:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NATURAL explicitly states that parenthetical disambiguation such as "(first generation)" and "(tablet)" should not be used if another commonly used name exists. "Surface (tablet)" is also very ambiguous, since it can refer to all devices in the Surface family of tablet computers. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 08:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I never claimed that "Surface RT" is the most common name of the device. I only said that it is also a common name (although it may not be the most common name), does not use parentheses, and is unambiguous on Wikipedia. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 08:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that the Surface RT is actually an uncommon name, so WP:NATURAL is not applicable here. TranslucentCloud (talk) 09:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said above, WP:NATURAL is only one part of the applicable policy, WP:TITLE. Another part of that policy, WP:TITLECHANGES, explicitly states that, quote, "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." As far as I can see, the title of this article has been stable for a long time (there have been some renames, but all titles since the beginning appear to have used very similar parenthetical disambiguation). As for a good reason, none have been provided so far - everyone keeps invoking WP:NATURAL without actually explaining how the move is supposed to improve Wikipedia (which, after all, should be our goal). Ergo, the title should not be changed. Indrek (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose After all this discussion that has gone on at Talk:Microsoft Surface, the consensus had already been reached. You missed the discussion there and I'm sorry, but Surface RT is ambiguous and is the old name. The iPad articles follow this scheme, and Surface RT can be confused as being the name because Surface 2 had been called Surface RT 2. Also see the sources over at Talk:Microsoft Surface. Thanks, WikIan -(talk) 18:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We would not want to create inconsistency between how it is referred in the article and the title here, correct? Besides user TheHoax will be opening up a new discussion to change everything over there at Microsoft Surface that references here to Surface RT. Which in every way, completely lacks any basis of reason or proof to do. WikIan -(talk) 09:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not all that unusual to have an article title that is different then the term used to describe the subject within the article especially with disambiguation is required for the article title. Further I don't think there is any consensus that would support using Surface RT within the prose regardless of what the title of this article ends up being. While not 100% the various discussions over there have been pretty clear consensus on that point. PaleAqua (talk) 02:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How about you ready our extremely lengthy discussion over at Talk:Microsoft Surface. It should explain this better. Basically Surface RT is an old and ambiguous name. Surface is the most common name as per WP Common, but it is too ambiguous so we simply add first generation in parenthesis much like [[iPad (first generation} even though iPad 1 is a more common name. Lastly, Surface RT can be confused as a grouping of device like a Surface RT and a Surface RT 2 (which is technically correct, although it is called a Surface 2). Please do a little more research into this specific case as it is unique and could be an exception to WP:NATURAL, not that Surface is not natural enough already. WikIan -(talk) 10:05, 16 September 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.

Obsure necessity of citation

[edit]

Hello, Indrek, during my past maintenance copyediting, I have voluntarily removed your CN template from the following sentence:

I believe there is no need for any citation, since the hybrid tablet's and 2-in-1 PC's nature are thoroughly explained in the according articles/subsections. TranslucentCloud (talk) 09:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through the articles you referred to, the distinction between a tablet and a 2-in-1 PC appears to be based on the operating system (desktop vs. non-desktop) and the availability of some ("typical" or "industry-standard") ports. However, it is not immediately clear that this distinction excludes the non-Pro Surface or Surface 2 (Windows RT has a desktop, and the port selection is essentially the same on both Pro and non-Pro Surfaces). Further, I'm having a hard time finding sources that would actually support these criteria. The sources used in the articles either do not base the definition of 2-in-1's on the operating system and ports (instead focusing on the form factor, e.g. whether the keyboard part attaches or detaches), or do not mention the term "2-in-1" at all. So perhaps it's the claims in those articles that need {{cn}} templates? Indeed, some claims like "devices using ARM processors ... are not classified as a 2-in-1s" (from 2-in-1 PC#Devices similar to 2-in-1s) and "2-in-1s [are] distinct by a support of desktop operating system" (from Tablet computer#Convertible, hybrid, 2-in-1) are entirely unsourced.
So I suppose the question that needs answering is: from where does this definition of "2-in-1 PC", that supposedly inherently excludes devices like the Surface, originate? I certainly don't recall this being part of the recent rename proposals and accompanying discussions at Talk:2-in-1 PC. Can you shed some light on this? Indrek (talk) 10:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like the industry has agreed on how to refer to 2-in-1 devices, but there are not much documents explaining things, separating existing devices to newly emerged categories and such. I recall I used this link during my latest dispute with some editor. It is from one of hardware vendors, but nevertheless worth the mentioning. P.S. Surface RT is not desktop-grade OS: even if it has a desktop (iOS and Android also do), it cannot be run on a desktop computer. TranslucentCloud (talk) 10:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that Dell-published blog post can be shown to qualify as a reliable source on such an important subject (which is debatable), it doesn't actually define the term "2-in-1" in any way, especially as contrasted to tablets. It merely explains that 2-in-1's can have many of the same characteristics as laptops - Intel CPUs, x86-based Windows, multiple USB ports with support for standard peripherals, etc. That does not mean all 2-in-1 devices must have those characteristics.
As for Windows RT not being "desktop-grade", now you've simply introduced another term instead of explaining anything. What makes an OS "desktop-grade"? The ability to run on a desktop computer? Well, a Raspberry Pi can act as a desktop computer and Windows 10 IOT runs on the RPi 2. Does Win10 IOT qualify as a desktop OS? You also mentioned Android. Did you know it has an x86 version that can be run on any PC? There are even ARM-based Android desktops. Does Android, then, qualify as a desktop OS? What about Chrome OS? Also worth examining is the reason something "cannot be run on a desktop computer". For Windows RT, the primary reason is licensing - Microsoft simply does not allow Windows RT to be installed on anything except specific tablets, and does not even distribute the operating system in any way other than preinstalled. But suppose that were to change one day, and people were given the ability to install Windows RT on any computer. Would the Surface and Surface 2 then suddenly qualify as 2-in-1's? Even though their own characteristics and capabilities wouldn't have changed in any way?
This definition of a 2-in-1 based on what else the same software can or cannot run on seems very arbitrary and not very sustainable to me. Indrek (talk) 11:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is good, that we such a discussion here. It will help us to summarize what we have got to this point.

What makes an OS "desktop-grade"?

I have mentioned that a desktop-grade OS should can comfortably run on a stereotypical standard desktop PC. When many devices (Pi is a good example) can be used as a desktop computer, or to handle some of desktop computers' tasks, these devices are not suitable for all tasks. Personal computer itself is now a very blurry term, but most of us can still somehow define devices as PCs now.
I do not know much about Windows 10 IoT Core, does it have a graphical interface? If not, it is not a desktop-grade OS by definition.
Android is another case, I definitely know it is used on some nettops and likes, but the Android is still defined as a mobile operating system by the tech community and the general public. The common opinion based on the fact, that the majority of Android devices are mobile. Similarly, iPad Pro can be used by someone as a desktop replacement but the productivity of such a replacement is of a very big doubt.
Desktop-grade OSes are productive OSes. If it is possible to install and comfortably use a serious productive tool: Adobe Photoshop, Final Cut Pro X, AutoCAD etc., the OS is a desktop-grade. Maybe I should use a term production-grade OS, which is slightly less opaque.
Windows RT, Android, iOS are not production-grade systems, even if you can install some of them onto a Midi Tower PC made of standard components, you cannot be as productive as with, say, Windows 7 Home Edition.

from where does this definition of "2-in-1 PC", that supposedly inherently excludes devices like the Surface, originate

As far as I know, it does not originates from the single place. Intel claims it has invented the term, but I believe they merely defined a form-factor. Somehow the term appeared and stuck. I have to find any insightful links yet, this task is not really an easy one. TranslucentCloud (talk) 14:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it seems we've moved from a desktop OS being defined by where it can run to being defined by what it can run. That seems like progress to me.
I do not know much about Windows 10 IoT Core, does it have a graphical interface? If not, it is not a desktop-grade OS by definition. Interesting. So something like Linux can be both a desktop OS and a non-desktop OS, depending on whether a graphical UI is installed?
Android is still defined as a mobile operating system And that's another thing - what exactly is a "mobile operating system"? One that runs on mobile devices? Well, the Intel-powered Surfaces are every bit as mobile as their ARM-based counterparts, so by that definition Windows 8.1 and 10 should also be mobile operating systems. One that runs only on mobile devices? As said before, Android can run on regular desktops as well. One that runs on phones? Well, Windows RT doesn't, whereas there are phones that run full Windows 7 or 8.1.
If it is possible to install and comfortably use a serious productive tool: Adobe Photoshop, Final Cut Pro X, AutoCAD etc., the OS is a desktop-grade. None of those three run on Linux, so does Linux not qualify as a desktop OS? Final Cut Pro also doesn't run on Windows, by the way.
The above may sound like nitpicking, and to an extent it is. But I'm only trying to point out that with different device types converging and new form factors being created, the operating systems running on them cannot really be neatly divided into "desktop" and "mobile". Given that, any definition of "2-in-1 PC" that relies on the term "desktop operating system" is by necessity also going to be a rather vague one. Which brings us right back to square one - if we cannot clearly define what a "2-in-1 PC" is, and no one else seems to have done that for us, how can we decide that the original Surface isn't one? Indrek (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This actually sounds like a nitpicking, but this is completely alright in this kind of conversation.

something like Linux can be both a desktop OS and a non-desktop OS, depending on whether a graphical UI is installed?

Yes. Not just GUI, but this is a perfect example, since the GUI is crucial for a desktop experience. Different OS parts may be taken into account. Talking about Linux, I obviously meant Linux distributions (Ubuntu, CentOS etc.), because Linux is just an OS kernel. Debian GNU/Linux OS may be both server and consumer (desktop, productive etc.), depending what packages are installed on it and how it confugured. Canonical with its Ubuntu went even farther and ships Ubuntu Desktop and Ubuntu Server — both are based on the same Linux kernel, but have completely different usage scenarios. Same is true for Windows and OS X — there are server OS versions in both of these families. Yet someone can use Windows XP exclusively as a file server, but obviously it didn't make it a server OS.

what exactly is a "mobile operating system"?

The OS, which powers mostly mobile devices.

None of those three run on Linux, so does Linux not qualify as a desktop OS? Final Cut Pro also doesn't run on Windows, by the way.

Windows XP, Mac OS 9.2.2, Debian GNU/Linux 7.0 all qualify as desktop OSes, yet they can qualify as a some other kind of OS.
What I am trying to say is that there are much of usage scenarios of hardware and software. Microscope can be used to drive nails, but the general consensus is that microscope is a scientific tool for scientific tasks, not a fancy kind of hammer.
While Windows 10 can be used as a desktop, server or mobile OS, the common opinion is that this is a primarily a desktop OS with mobile/server/whatever features. OS X is a primarily desktop OS with some server features. Android is a primarily mobile OS with some desktop features. Most of Linux distributions are combined OSes with equal desktop, mobile and server features.
Returning to the 2-in-1's case, what we see is that the manufacturers, OS, CPU vendors are generally agreed on the term and market own devices under this moniker. If we compare such devices from different manufacturers we see the strong similarities between them: form-factor, OS, connectivity. There is no a single device, marketed as a 2-in-1, which is powered by iOS, Android or Windows RT.
So, if there is no article yet from some respected blogger or tech columnist, which dot the i's and cross the t's on the topic "2-in-1 vs. Hybrid or Convertible: What's the Difference?", we still have understanding what is 2-in-1 and why Surface RT is not a 2-in-1. It is just the matter of a comprehension of facts. TranslucentCloud (talk) 09:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think we can agree that while a good definition of "desktop operating system" doesn't really exist, there is general consensus on which operating systems are "desktop-grade" and which are "mobile", and the distinction is based more on overall capabilities and usage scenarios, rather than specific software applications or hardware platforms that the operating system supports. Fair enough.
There is no a single device, marketed as a 2-in-1, which is powered by iOS, Android or Windows RT. Not true.
Windows RT devices described as 2-in-1's:
  • "Lenovo IdeaPad Yoga 11 11.6-Inch 2 in 1 Convertible Touchscreen Laptop (59342980)" [http://www.amazon.com/Lenovo-11-6-Inch-Convertible-Touchscreen-59342980/dp/B009AEPIPE]
  • "ASUS TF600 2in1 Detachable Tablet [OLD VERSION]" [http://www.amazon.com/ASUS-TF600-Detachable-Tablet-VERSION/dp/B00A360ZOW]
  • "Asus introduced a 2-in-1 system in which the Windows RT-powered tablet section could be removed from the keyboard base." [13]
  • "Will some 2-in-1 devices still use ARM chips, like the Surface RT and Surface 2 have?" [14]
Android:
  • "This is Pixel C: Google’s premium Android 2-in-1" [15]
  • "Dell Venue 10 7000: Good Tablet, Fantastic 2-In-1 Android Laptop" [16]
  • "HP Slatebook 10-h010nr x2 10.1-Inch Detachable 2 in 1 Touchscreen Laptop" [http://www.amazon.com/HP-Slatebook-10-h010nr-Detachable-Touchscreen/dp/B00DJ654LM]
  • "Datamini 2-in-1 Dual Boot With Windows 10 and Android 5.1 Launched" [17]
  • "Nextbook Ares 11 2-in-1 Hybrid Android tablet/laptop review" [18]
  • "Snag a Remix 2-in-1 Android tablet for just $39, and help test the hardware (crowdfunding)" [19]
  • "The top operating system on tablets and 2-in-1s in 2015 is expected to be Android, according to IDC." [20]
And look, here's a 2-in-1 Chromebook:
  • "ASUS Chromebook Flip 10.1-Inch Convertible 2 in 1 Touchscreen (Rockchip, 2 GB, 16GB SSD, Silver)" [http://www.amazon.com/Chromebook-10-1-Inch-Convertible-Touchscreen-Rockchip/dp/B00YY3X678]
Even the iPad Pro has been described as a 2-in-1:
  • "The iPad Pro in a way is Apple turning a corner: it’s more than just a tablet. It’s Apple’s first proper 2-in-1." [21]
  • "Apple iPad Pro vs. Microsoft Surface Pro 4; Which is the best 2-in-1 tablet?" [22]
  • "Apple iPad Pro vs. Microsoft Surface Pro 4: Which 2-in-1 Device Should You Get?" [23]
  • "Microsoft Surface Pro 4 vs Apple iPad Pro: Battle of 2-in-1 Devices" [24]
  • "iPad Pro early impressions: Promising as an artist's tablet, diluted as a 2-in-1" [25]
  • "Apple's first 2-in-1 tablet, the iPad Pro, launches this week" [26]
I'm not seeing a consensus anywhere that 2-in-1's absolutely have to run a desktop OS. Any article I've read that attempts to offer a definition focuses primarily on the hardware aspect - a 2-in-1 has to function as both a laptop and a tablet. How this is accomplished software-wise is apparently not that important.
Per WP:VERIFY, "any material whose verifiability has been challenged ... must include an inline citation that directly supports the material". This is not an "Obsure [sic] necessity", it's explicitly stated in one of Wikipedia's core policies. If no reliable sources exist that either a) describe the Surface and Surface 2 as not 2-in-1's, or b) define the term "2-in-1" in a manner that unambiguously excludes those devices, then the respective claims and statements on Wikipedia need revision. Indrek (talk) 13:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when I said "There is no a single device, marketed as a 2-in-1, which is powered by iOS, Android or Windows RT" I meant, that I do not know any iOS/Android/Windows RT device, which has been marketed as a 2-in-1. Marketed by the manufacturer of course, not some eBay merchant.
As you fairly stated, the term used much by the media, and a lot of journalists pin "2-in-1" label on virtually any hybrid laptop or tablet. Even on iPad Pro and some Chromebook. I believe there is some manufacturer in the wild, which calls his hybrid Android tablet a 2-in-1, but majority of those I know does not.
For now I propose to stop this discussion and leave the CN-template in place, until someone will find a suitable citation. Or to delete the sentence in its entirety. In the latter case we also should rework 2-in-1 PC and respective sections of Tablet computer and Laptop articles. TranslucentCloud (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving the sentence and {{cn}} template in place for now is fine with me. But ultimately such statements (how "2-in-1" is defined and which devices qualify as one) will need to be shown to be based on reliable sources, rather than Wikipedia editors' (any editors, not you specifically) personal understanding of the current state of the market. I'll continue to look for such sources as well. Indrek (talk) 13:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Me either. TranslucentCloud (talk) 13:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Surface_(2012_tablet)&oldid=1200815599"