Talk:Windows Embedded 8

I think this should be merged with windows embedded industry,furthermore this is not part of windows CE.Zapper067 (talk) 12:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

The notability of this Wikipedia article has been questioned. This article says that Microsoft has a 40 to 45 percent share of the $1 billion embedded OS market. Since Windows Embedded 8 is a major offering within Microsoft's product line for that market, it makes this a notable article. Ed Brey (talk) 00:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ed

One mention is not enough to establish notability. Also not adhering to proper formatting and style guideline and cutting more cleanup job for other editors doesn't give a good image of you yourself either. (Believe it or not, the perception of an editor is very important too.) And please don't try mundane tactics like contextless stats such as "40 to 45 percent" and "$1 billion".

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 04:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Now, now. What do we have here? First, this blanket revert that removes the cleanup in addition to being a WP:BRD violation; then sending a thank for my undoing it? Not the best editor impression. Codename Lisa (talk) 04:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I sent a thanks for your latest revert because I agreed with it. I was in the process of making it myself when you beat me to it. However, I disagree with your comment on the rv that my preceding rv was disruptive. At the time I made the rv, there was nothing from you on this Talk page. IHMO, it would have been better if you had posted there first. It would have also been better if I had waited a bit to see if you would. No hard feelings - just a confusing situation. Ed Brey (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About the blanket revert: sorry, I missed that there was cleanup in there. Agreed: not the best editor impression. Ed Brey (talk) 04:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of articles mentioning the OS; I just picked one good one. What would you suggest as a way to know if there are enough to establish notability? Regarding the size of the embedded OS market and Microsoft's share of it, could you elaborate on what you mean by "contextless"? Ed Brey (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ed Brey:: Look, there is no mandate for any comment in the talk page: Every editor is fully responsible for what he or she reverts; and reverting a citation style is something that good-faith editors try their utmost to avoid! (You should pay close attention to what it represents: The citation cleanup means that the cleaning editor has paid some attention to your source and isn't just a stubborn warrior.) In addition, there is no second R in WP:BRD.

But I am going to forget all this and try not let this episode cloud my judgment of you; at least, not today. Tell me: Have you studied WP:GNG and WP:NOTSTATS?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I discovered what caused me to miss your cleanup with the citation. In response to that edit, I received an email that said, "Your edit on Windows Embedded 8 has been reverted by Codename Lisa." I thought that "revert" meant the page was put back to exactly the content of the previous edit, so I didn't look to see if there were other changes. I wonder if this terminology nuance is worth bringing up for community discussion. Perhaps other people who don't edit often may get confused, too. Ed Brey (talk) 04:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ed Brey: Okay, but I feel obliged to reiterate the actual question (unless you feel there is no need): Have you studied WP:GNG and WP:NOTSTATS? And did you capture their spirit?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 08:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm fully cognizant of the guideline and policy you referenced. It is with those in mind that I asked the questions I did on 04:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC). I look forward to your reply. Ed Brey (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have, then you must have reached the answer to your question already. The answer is: We need more inline citations of secondary sources. Currently, there is only one inline citation two citations total. Putting those sources at the bottom of the page is enough to stop the article from being deleted, identifying its subject as potentially notable. But the proof of notability itself requires what I said. Shouldn't be hard.

Let's start with what you've found so far.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the connection between 'inline' citations and notability. The article does need more inline citations, but I don't have time to fix that problem. The notability problem seemed like low hanging fruit. To that end, I added two more sources under Further Reading. Sound good? Ed Brey (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NRVE. Codename Lisa (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NRVE supports my point that inline citations are not required: "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation." Is there not now sufficient evidence of significant attention from independent sources? Ed Brey (talk) 02:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please continue reading NRVE past the sentence that you quoted! Hopefully, you'll get the point.

I could quote but I don't want to start a quoting competition while the problem lies elsewhere: Evidently, you have trouble accepting that I am not convinced of the notability of this article. Otherwise, you'd have chosen a better approach than mere bombardment. But if you are indeed intended to resolve the problem, acknowledging it is step #1. While I think the mainstream Windows NT family is notable, I believe that a company such as Microsoft inevitably has a lot of failed and/or non-notable projects and this one is one of them. Do you seriously believe that three article in a colossal case such as Microsoft is enough to convince a person such as I that the case is otherwise? To the contrary, the very fact that it takes you days to find one good source convinces me that perhaps they don't exist and the topic is indeed not notable.

Just an advance notice: If things between us didn't progress, you might want to try WP:DR.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply has some implications that need correcting. First, I did read past the sentence I quoted (should go without saying). Where I think the confusion lies is that the conversation has forked into two separate questions: (1) Is the article notable? and (2) are inline citations important for demonstrating notability? I quoted WP:NRVE to refute your assertion of the second question. It sounds like we are in agreement that the first question is really the main one. The second false implication is that I have trouble accepting your opinion. On the contrary, you're welcome to whatever opinion you like. Hopefully, we can identify the underlying criteria we each us, and find a way to reach consensus. The third false implication is that it took me days to find a source. It took about 2 minutes, actually. My time to volunteer with WP is limited. Regarding bombardment, I don't know what you want. First you were asking for more sources. Now it's bombardment? Back to the main question, Google news has 178 hits for "Windows 8 Embedded". If that's not enough, what is? Ed Brey (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]