Jump to content

Talk:Windows Phone/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

References


Listing Absent Features?

Admittedly, I haven't contributed for a while, but when did we collectively decide that listing things a device doesn't do was worthy of inclusion? The "Features Removed From Windows Mobile" section has several "features" which weren't there to begin with, and uses a simple "Five Things I Don't Like" opinion piece as research. It's almost like burying a section in Toyota Camry about how it's not very good at being a dump truck. -- Kevin (talk) 07:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. A lot of blood sweat and tears have been shed over that section which was at one point labled "Missing Features" and was just a dumping ground for Windows Phone 7 haters. If you want to truly understand what went into that section, look up the archived Talk sections about "Missing Features" and you'll see. I lobbied hard for it to be completely removed on the basis that saying a feature of Windows Phone 7 is that it doesn't do cut/copy/paste is like saying not unicycling is a hobby of mine. However, people got so up in arms about how this is a fanyboy page that glows at the mention of Microsoft that a token "negative" section has been insisted to need to exist. In the end we compromised by only including features that older versions of Windows Mobile had. Hey, be bold and delete it. Maybe things have quited down enough that nobody will throw a fit. I'd love to see it removed. Captain Stack (talk) 08:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
If it is up to me, I would remove the whole section, but apparently a few, but very vocal users (trolls?) want the section to stay. Illegal Operation (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
"In the end we compromised by only including features that older versions of Windows Mobile had." Windows Mobile never had universal inbox. Video calling was also never a native feature of the OS, but rather an OEM add-on. It seems the baseline for the comparison is not Windows Mobile but the current iPhone.--86.162.103.119 (talk) 10:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
If that's true I request that you remove content that was not in Windows Mobile, including the above listed examples. Not being too knowledgable of older versions of WinMo I had no qualification to remove content like that. Thanks for pointing that out. Captain Stack (talk) 10:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Please forgive me if I totally muck things up in asking this as this is my first time participating in a discussion. But related to this discussion: the article speaks of Windows Phone as a replacement of Windows Mobile. But I'm not sure how well that fits. On 10 January 2010 Microsoft announced Windows Embedded Handheld, which was essentially an updated version of Windows Mobile. It was on 15 February 2010 that Microsoft announced Windows Phone 7 and said that both operating systems would continue to exists since they addressed different needs. The mainstream support date for the Windows Mobile line was extended to 2014. Also during the announcement Steve Ballmer and Joe Belfiore made it exceedingly clear that Windows Phone 7 and Windows Mobile were addressing different needs and were different operating systems. This brings to question whether or not Windows Phone should be called a successor of Windows Mobile. It's almost like some one that produced swiss army knives designing a regular kitchen knife (which of course has less functionality) and selling them both and some one else referring to the kitchen knife as the successor of the Swiss Army knife (in which case it's also questionable if it is proper to say the kitchen knife has had features removed or missing since it was never designed to have those, but that's another discussion). As far as I could tell there was nothing that took Windows Embedded Handheld into consideration in Wikipedia either. I just added a brief statement about it on the Windows Mobile page to get things started.Alcedes78 (talk) 12:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Alcedes78, thanks for participating in the discussion. The Windows Phone 7 page has been subject to a lot of controversy. You bring up an interesting point. Would you support removal of the section "Feature removed from WinMo"? Based on this discussion, perhaps it is time to get rid of this section. Nobody seems to like it.Captain Stack (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I would think that we should mention lack of copy and past and multitasking. Whether that's in this section or in the critical reception section, I'd have to think about. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
As I've always said, I think listing things that something ISN'T makes little sense. However, if this content must be mentioned, I suggest it goes under an "Announced Features" section. Then there can be a place for features that Microsoft has publicly anounced will be added to the phone. Microsoft has made such an announcement for Adobe Flash, HTML 5, Copy/Paste, Multitasking, and a handful of other features.Captain Stack (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
It makes sense because WP:WEIGHT is determined by its prominence in third-party reliable sources. Putting it in the announced features makes it sound like a positive when it's really a negative. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Why not have a section about how you can't use it as a frying pan? Who decided these features were "missing"? Since this article isn't about the media and it's not a comparison to other phone platforms, where do you draw lines? That is why we've always had sections that are relevant to the phone platform as it exists on its own (independent of competitiors and media) like "Removed from WinMo" and "Announced Features". Once you start bringing in the media or comparing to other platforms, the page becomes a magazine or a fanboy dumping ground rather than a neutral objective article about what Windows Phone 7 is.Captain Stack (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I already answered that and it's the same as any other article on Wikipedia: Weight should be determined by the prominence of the content in third-party reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
To answer your question, I am for the removal of the "Features removed from WinMo?" section since I don't think it's really applicable. As stated at the initial announcement of what was then called Windows Phone 7 Series "Windows Phone isn't Windows Mobile." I also still think the word "successor" needs to be removed. Alcedes78 (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.112.144.129 (talk)

The missing features of Windows Phone 7 have been given massive coverage by the media, and by most reliable technology publications that cover smartphones. In fact, it could be argued that a large proportion of the coverage about Windows Phone 7 is about its missing features, and the update process to restore those missing features (which was botched). Whoever recently deleted these very well referenced facts, should not have.--Lester 21:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the removed content. I do not see the point why this info should be censored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.217.111.232 (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I see user:Illegal Operation has just deleted the section again (diff). I think you need to get consensus before deleting sections.--Lester 02:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I do not understand why Illegal Operation (talk) wants this information censored. Is Illegal Operation (talk) a Microsoft employee? Should we allow this censorship? Please people revert his edits or he will win! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.217.111.232 (talk) 06:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
First, nobody really want that section, but Lester. Second, I am not a Microsoft employee, but an enthusiast and I in a city near Los Angeles, CA. Third, I own two Windows Phone 7 handsets, Samsung Focus and HTC HD7, and that's how I know so much "stuff" about it. Fourth, Windows Phone 7 is not iOS, Android, WebOS, Windows Mobile, Symbian, or BlackBerry OS so it obviously is not going to have all the features that those OS have. Fifth, there's an infinite number of things that is missing and that's why I am only focusing on the "announced features". Sixth, what you deem is important and missing is entirely subjective. As "real" Windows Phone 7 users would tell you, the biggest hurdle is lack of custom ringtones. Copy and paste and multitasking has been overly emphasize by sites like Engadget. I am not saying that those things are unimportant, but who is to decide what is important? Finally, nothing has been "removed". Windows Phone 7 is an entire rewrite and is not based on Windows Mobile. UPDATE: The update that adds copy and paste has been released. Illegal Operation (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that not being Windows Phone 7 an upgrade to Windows Mobile 6, Microsoft decided to continue with the version number creating confusion. So it is quite important that people know what features were removed from the previous operating system. Since we can not decide what is important we just state facts. I want that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.218.250.105 (talk) 05:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
To me, what Illegal Operation said is making more sense. If Windows phone 7 is entire re-write, then how could there be any features removed? My suggestion would be to mention that windows phone 7 is re-write and some of previously supported feature are not provided at the first release time. Here we are list some of the important Not Yet Implemented/Released features. -Abhishikt 05:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, so we will have to state that Microsoft wants to mislead people into believing is is an upgrade (they incremented the version number instead of starting from 1) when it is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.218.251.50 (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt it. Microsoft probably want some of the "magic" from the desktop Windows 7 OS to to rub off on its mobile platform and really, does name even matter? Illegal Operation (talk) 02:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I am working on a replacement section called "Compare with Windows Mobile". This section will mention that while Windows Phone 7 is the successor to Windows Mobile, WP7 has been entirely rewritten and as a result have different feature sets than do Windows Mobile. I will of cause include some of the features in Windows Mobile that in not in Windows Phone 7, but it wouldn't be a list like today. Notice that I did NOT use the word "removed" because WP7 has been rewritten and not base on WM so no feature has been removed. CaptainStack and other users are free to step in and help write this section. Illegal Operation (talk) 03:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not a complete rewrite AFAIK. It's still based on Windows CE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
That paragraph is pretty terrible at the moment so I edited it. If nobody wants to make the whole formatting changes, can they please just fix the typos of 'implanted' for 'implemented' and 'time restrain' for 'time constraints', and the double phrase 'and custom ringtones' at the end? :)

Also, it probably shouldn't be presented as a list like this, but it made it a lot easier to read with my comments on the citations for now


(this sentence should be back in Operating System Development)In 2008 Windows Mobile 7, the intended successor to Windows Mobile 6.x, was cancelled and a new version of the OS was designed and written from scratch (although still based on Windows CE).
Although the operating system is still named 'Windows Phone 7', it is not based on Windows Mobile 6.5 or any earlier versions of Windows Mobile, and as a result it does not offer the same feature set as earlier versions. Microsoft has stated that some features are no longer present are by design while others have yet to be implemented due to time constraints, but will be addressed in future updates. Some of the features present in Windows Mobile 6.5 but not in Windows Phone 7 at release are
- full multitasking for 3rd party apps [75]
- Adobe Flash support [76]
- connecting to a hidden Wi-fi (wireless network) access point[77]
(connecting to a wifi access point with a static IP? I didn't know they existed, is that right? I think this point is supposed to say the phone should be able to have a static IP)[78]
- tethering to a computer for internet access [citation needed - http://mashable.com/2010/09/25/windows-phone-7-tethering/ , there are others]
- file system access for third parties and users [79, but I think this is a better source:

http://pocketnow.com/tech-news/mix10-windows-phone-7-series-will-not-have-a-file-manager-nor-usb-mass-storage-mode]

- bluetooth file transfer [79, but again I think this is a better source: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2449475]
- USSD messages [80 - but I think a non-english source is not ideal, this one is better http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/windowsphone7series/thread/b54ca0be-4477-4ce3-b85f-40c55fbe918c. Also, I'm not sure it's entirely correct, because I also found this http://www.theunwired.net/?item=how-to-forwarding-conditional-calls-with-windows-phone-7-using-ussd-codes]
- custom ringtones [81]
About WP7 USSD support. It seems that USSD is not fully implemented in WP7 platform, and the problem in details is described only in russian sources. Originally in this article from Oct. 6, 2010 by blogger (article currently removed, cached copy is available), later in WP7 review by Mobile-review.com. --188.163.100.118 (talk) 22:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
thanks! Jac. Note: yes, I work for Microsoft, but no, I don't think that's biasing me in my quest for better writing. 24.17.82.125 (talk) 06:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
User:Illegal Operation continues to delete large swathes of referenced text. This should not have been done.--Lester 10:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
24.17.82.125, unfortunately the section was previously barely legible before and it's really hard to fix. Illegal Operation (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Legibility is not a valid reason for deletion. You'll have to try a bit harder for a justification for your deletions.-Lester 13:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Almost everybody else, but you, wanted a "Features Removed From Windows Mobile" section deleted. I was trying to compromise: to make a section that would at least partially satisfy you by talking about Windows Mobile and the differences without just listing features no longer present. You have, however, made it clear you will not compromise, therefore, I and other users have no choice but to remove the whole section. Illegal Operation (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
The simple fact is that every major media organisation has covered the missing features of Windows Phone 7. This is because Windows Phone 7 is missing many of the more basic features that other smartphone platforms have. I haven't seen any justification why it should be removed from this article.---Lester 00:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I think Illegal Operation's solution of a sub section comparing WP7 to WM was a smart compromise. Either way, Lester points outs that this artile should be responsible for comparing what WP7 has to other mobile operating systems. Lester says there is no justification why it should be removed from this article, yet he continues to ignore the fact the mobile operating system article subjectively compares every mobile OS in a chart. This article should be no different from the Android or iOS articles in the sense that it should be focused on the subject itself, anything else is less relevant and there are are more sensible articles on Wikipedia that deal with the issues Lester brings up. Lester's concerns with this article have nothing to do with subject of the article. --Interframe (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Interframe. If you want to compare WP7 with "other smartphone platforms", you should do so at the Mobile operating system#Smartphone OS comparison, not at the WP7 page. Illegal Operation (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
We should not allow Microsoft to take control of a Wikipedia page. If Illegal Operation (talk) continues censoring content we should try to block him and revert any censoring change.
A couple things. First, please sign your posts, it really makes discussion much easier and more efficient. Secondly, by insinuating that letting Illegal Operation edit is allowing "Microsoft to take control of a Wikipedia page" you are suggesting that his editing of this page is actually a Microsoft funded activity. This is a serious acusation, one that I think is not true and shouldn't be thrown around lightly. He may have strong feelings about Microsoft products, but it is not your right to make acusations like that. Regarding the actual "censorship" and editing, I haven't paid close enough attention to say anything too strongly, but I believe that this page is about Windows Phone 7 and how it exists on its own. Even comparing it to previous versions of Windows Mobile is dubious (thought not necessarily unacceptable) because #1 - it's largely a rebrand and rewrite of the OS and #2 - this is the Windows Phone 7 page and comparisons to other versions should be done on the Windows Mobile page, and Mobile OS pages. As I've always said before, things that have recieved attention from the media belong only in the reception section. Let's please try to keep this civilCaptain Stack (talk) 06:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I meant this edit-summary literally.[1] I honestly don't see consensus here. Is this the discussion Illegal Operation is referring to? Or is there another one that I missed? I'll self-revert if there's something that I'm missing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this is. Apparently, Lester doesn't disagree. Illegal Operation (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, I don't agree either. And what happened to the content about Microsoft's botched update? How did that get deleted? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Did you hit your head or something? This is what you said: "I agree that we shouldn't document every update. But as for now, I think that it's important to list the current status of the software. This is important information that I think our readers will want to know. After MS has resolved the issue and it's not longer a problem, then I agree we can remove it. But for now, let's explain the current status of the software." Illegal Operation (talk) 23:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I did hit my head. Now don't you feel guilty? :) Seriously, that was back when I thought it was just a minor glitch that would get resolved in a few days, not the never-ending nightmare it has become. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, to its credit, Microsoft did fixed the issue: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2530409 That tool fixes everything including previously bricked phone. Anyhow, back to my point; how do you want to fix the section? Illegal Operation (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah though the problem took a long time to fix, I still think it makes little sense to have it in the article, especially now that the problem is gone. Basically, it's still in our memories but it'll probably be irrelevant in a year so why put it in now?Captain Stack (talk) 01:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Really? They fixed the problem? My Samsung Focus begs to differ. In any case, the fact that it's taking 2 months to fix the update issue I think makes it notable to stay in the article, although I'm fine if someone wants to propose alternative text. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The other news is that Chris Walshie has managed to turn the tool into an updater for all the Windows Phone. I managed to update my AT&T branded Samsung Focus to NoDo (7390) without debranding it. http://blog.walshie.me/2011/04/04/so-who-wants-windows-phone-updates-like-right-now/ Also, I don't know what the big deal is. I know plenty of updates that brick Android phones, yet they don't get a front page attention. Illegal Operation (talk) 03:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Going back on topic, I don't see why Windows Phone 7 missing "videocalling, VoIP calling, USB mass-storage, universal email inbox, universal search, a system-wide file manage..." belong on this article. Those are already on the Mobile operating system#Smartphone OS comparison Illegal Operation (talk) 03:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
One user said that video calling (and perhaps several other features) were not features of the old OS but were actually software features added by vendors. These would not belong on the page. If anyone knows what those features are, please remove them from the section. Also, the update was supposed to roll out in the second week of March so it hasn't even been one month much less two to fix.Captain Stack (talk) 04:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry I haven't had as much time to work on the article as I would like, but generally speaking, if multiple reliable sources have covered features lacked by WP7, there's a good chance that it belongs in the article. An obvious example would be lack of multi-tasking. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
That's just it. Some of these "missing" things are just plain silly. For example, a system-wide file manager and Bluetooth file transfers. As far as I can recall, the only things heavily covered by the media is lack of copy and paste and multitasking and the NoDo update has already added copy and paste. The other thing I am wondering is that why don't we do this at the Mobile operating system article instead. Illegal Operation (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
That's your opinion, and while you're entitled to it, we base our articles on what's found in reliable sources, not the opinions of Wikipedia editors. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
There's no reason why this information can't be both places. But it's relevant to WP7 if it's receiving coverage in articles about WP7. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
What I am trying to say is that some of these "missing" features are undue weight (see WP:WEIGHT). I, personally, think that Bing Navigation is most important "missing" feature, yet that is not listed. So basically, I want to be able to establish what belongs and what doesn't belong on the article, because there's infinite number of things that missing. Illegal Operation (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
How is it undue weight? These have been documented extensively by third-party reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I am saying that you are overly focusing in it. Also, Wikipedia is not Engadget, Gizmodo, or other news site so it should only cover what it does not what it "should" do. Illegal Operation (talk) 19:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
The features are not "missing". They are features that the reviewers want to have. I don't know why we are focusing so much attention on what the OS doesn't have. Illegal Operation (talk) 01:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I renamed the section to "Absent features". I think you misunderstand how WP:WEIGHT is determined. Weight is supposed to be based on the amount of coverage receive in third-party reliable sources. How do you think weight should be given? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
In that case, I don't ever remember "a system-wide file manager, Bluetooth file transfers, USSD messages..." ever being cover extensively in the media. In fact, I can't find any information on some of these anywhere than GSMArena and one of the source is from a forum written in Russia. Illegal Operation (talk) 03:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Illegal Operation (talk), Why do you want to hide useful information? Why are you not objective? Do you really care about mobile operating systems? If you really cared you will not hide any information to make them compete more ferociously and bring all the features we all want. If you do not have any economic relationship with Microsoft please state the truth and make Wikipedia useful so buyers can get the best operating system. I really care about Mobile Operating Systems. Please help innovation instead only helping Microsoft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.218.251.115 (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Just because it's useful doesn't mean it belongs in Wikipedia (they don't put the price of the iPhone 4 on the iPhone 4 page even though that's useful information). This is an encyclopedia and therefore should only have encyclopedic information. It's not a dumping ground for what Wikipedia editors wished Windows Phone 7 had, nor is it a tech media site. Windows Phone 7 should be evaluated as it exists in space rather than compared to other phone OSs. THIS is the truly objective approach. I'm not saying we shouldn't mention any of these (supposed) missing features, but you don't get to decide what's "missing" nor does CNET or any other tech site. Calling a feature "missing" is inherently negative.Captain Stack (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually reliables sources such as CNET do get to decide. It's not our place as Wikipedia editors to say that reliable sources are wrong or should be ignored. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
So if CNET says "Windows Phone 7 is missing a built in face shaver" then we should put it in Wikipedia? We must decide what's encyclopedic, because that's not the media's job. They can say whatever they want but we must stay objective and encyclopedic. Responses from sources like CNET belong in Reception.Captain Stack (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is about what something, in this case Windows Phone 7, is. Wikipedia is not a buying guide. Wikipedia is not a wish list. Wikipedia is not is not a list of what Windows Phone 7 is not. Illegal Operation (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, some of these are not reliable sources. For example, website written in Russia language for a source? Illegal Operation (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
"If you do not have any economic relationship with Microsoft please state the truth and make Wikipedia useful so buyers can get the best operating system." I have answer this questing many many many many many times: I have a Samsung Focus and an HTC HD7 and I love my phones and that is the only obligation I have to Microsoft to write this article. Also, Wikipedia is NOT a cell phone buying guide. It's simply an article about what Windows Phone 7 is. "Why do you want to hide useful information?" Not every "useful" information belong on Wikipedia. "Why are you not objective?" This is not a Microsoft site so I don't post complains straight up to Joe Belfiore (VP of Windows Phone developement). "Do you really care about mobile operating systems?" Of cause. "If you really cared you will not hide any information to make them compete more ferociously and bring all the features we all want." Wikipedia is not a wishlist. I sent an email to Joe Belfiore complaining about the lack of Bing Navigation, but that doesn't mean that it belong on Wikipedia. Illegal Operation (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
There is no requirement that sources be in English. Please see WP:V. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
The translation must be provided and I don't understand what Bing/Google Translator said. Illegal Operation (talk) 03:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Translations are only required for quotations. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I think it is imperative that the absent feature list be kept. It was extremely helpful to me when doing research on smart phones and saved a lot of time. I don't see anything anti-Microsoft about it. Even writers who gave positive reviews to Windows Phone 7 have mentioned missing features. In fact, I would dispute the article's neutrality on the basis that it seems highly suspicious that ONLY positive information is being stated. It goes so far that someone might question whether Microsoft isn't trying to influence the article in their favor. I also noticed marketshare information missing. Why is this gone?! I can't make sense of why someone would remove that. It seems very relevant. For comparison, the iPhone article has both marketshare information and a list of restrictions. That should settle the debate right there.Darkhack (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
The absent features are still in the article. They have just been integrated into the Reception section. It's also important to remember that Wikipedia is not a buyer's guide and lots of data that people might like to read isn't included because it's not encyclopedic. The reason we moved the absent features from their own section to the reception section is that calling a feature "absent" suggests that it's a feature that the smartphone HAS to have, when things may be left out on purpose. For instance, blu-ray is not an absent feature of the Xbox 360 and Gears of War is not an absent feature of the PS3. They are things that one console has that the other doesn't. Regarding the marketshare information, I don't know who removed that but it really ought to be put back in. Hope this helps clear things up. Captain Stack (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit wars have begun

Sad that some have to resort edit waring (continuous reverting). deletion diff --Lester 00:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't blame it on me. It's your fault. Illegal Operation (talk) 01:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Illegal Operation, I think you'll find it more productive to defend yourself than to attack Lester.Captain Stack (talk) 06:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much to the people that are restoring the censored text. We must keep wikipedia useful and maintain wikipedia being useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.218.250.67 (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Move to new name "Windows Phone"

I believe that this is the perfect time to change the article's name to "Windows Phone". I see no reason why we need to have a separate article for Windows Phone 7, Windows Phone 7.5, Windows Phone 8 etc. Perhaps when this article become incrementally large, we can make separate articles. Illegal Operation (talk) 02:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Still seems a bit soon. We don't know that Mango is 7.5. When there's a legit new version then we'll split them. Captain Stack (talk) 06:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I do not believe that Windows Phone 7.5 (or whatever it will be call) is big enough to qualify for its own article. It's the same reason we don't have separate articles for iPhone OS 1.X, iPhone OS 2.X, iPhone OS 3.X and iOS 4.X. Illegal Operation (talk) 01:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I think I misunderstood your original post. Yes all versions should be in one article. We'll add a seperate section (not page) for whatever Mango ends up being named when we know the name. Captain Stack (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree, this article is now about the new Windows Phone line, not just Windows Phone 7. ADNewsom (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I think the article should stay as Windows Phone 7 for now. When Mango comes out, we can revisit the issue. BTW, just because there aren't separate articles for each version of iOS doesn't mean we should follow the same pattern here. We have separate articles on Windows 1.0, Windows 2.0, Windows 3.1x, etc.. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
If I may jump into the discussion, I think perhaps the content of Windows Phone 7.1 could be merged in the just-barely-more-than-a-stub article, Windows Phone 7 version history. Any thoughts? Kiranerys-talk 06:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Marketshare information

We used to have a section (under Reception) for the marketshare and adoption. What happened to that? I also noticed a small bit about marketshare was recently edited out. Is there a reason we're removing this content? Captain Stack (talk) 01:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Market share should definitely covered. What's up with this edit?[2] There isn't even an explanation in the edit summary why it was removed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Market share is listed at Mobile operating system. I don't see market share on iOS or webOS, so I don't see why it's appropriate here. Illegal Operation (talk) 03:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
WP7's market share is obviously notable in an article about WP7. Readers shouldn't have to go to some peripheral article to find out about WP7. Also, neither iOS or webOS are WP:FA or even WP:GA, so WP:OTHERSTUFF applies. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
There are many different data: anybody can do sampling and have data. As a result, I tend to avoid adding these type of data in the article. The last thing we need is a list of "data" from a bunch of sites. Illegal Operation (talk) 04:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Do you really want a section like this?: "Microsoft reported on December 21, 2010 that in the first 6 weeks phone manufacturers sold 1.5 million Windows Phone 7 devices to mobile operators and retailers. On January 26, 2011 Microsoft stated that in the 4th quarter of 2010 it had sold more than 2 million Windows Phone 7 licenses for phones, which manufacturers had delivered to mobile operators and retailers. In January 2011, LG reported about its own handsets: "From an industry perspective we had a high expectation, but from a consumer point of view the visibility is less than we expected". At CEBIT Preview, Deutsche Telekom told Yahoo that its Windows Phone 7 handsets are selling better than expected. According to NPD Group, a group specialized in films, movies, and video games, Windows Phone 7 achieved a market-share of 2% among smartphones sold to consumers in the United States, 2 months after release, in the 4th quarter of 2010. On February 2, 2011, T-Mobile USA said of Windows Phone 7: "We’ve done well with the devices that we sold.” On the 15th February 2011 Omar Khan, Chief Strategy Officer at Samsung Telecommunications America, said Samsung’s Focus handset, which was launched on AT&T last November along with a handful of other Windows Phone 7 devices, has sold well, but did not provide specific sales figures." Illegal Operation (talk) 04:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
What I would expect is a section that explains that WP7 has sold poorly so far, but analysts are predicting that WP7 would become the dominent OS in a few year's time. I would also expect its relative position to other phone OS's to be explained. Not sure why this is controversial. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't want dumps of information which is what this section always become. Also, I don't see what other mobile operating systems have anything to do with Windows Phone article. Those information belongs on the Mobile operating system. That article mostly talk about market share, market projection, and comparing the OS. Illegal Operation (talk) 04:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I've added the market share section again. Once Q2 data for 2011 become available, we should add them as well. The market share includes a proper reference. I don't understand why this information should not be provided in the article on WP7? Please note that this is just stating a fact, i.e. entirely NPOV. -- Enemenemu (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I think market share belongs in the article. Right now, it's running 3 editors to 1 in favor of inclusion. I suggest that Illegal Operation should stop edit-warring this out of the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I also agree that the marketshare information should belong here as long as it is not speculative, presented in a neutral way, and is regularly updated. In the past there have been lines like "Android has outsold WP7 16:1" or "Analysts predict that by 2015 WP7 will be the second most used mobile OS". That does not belong here and I expect it to be edited out if it's ever put in again. Sources like ComScore and NetApplications are considered solid and as long as we keep it to the bare unbiased numbers I think we'll be good. Captain Stack (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand why Enemenemu doesn't add this information to the mobile operating system page. The data on page is seriously out of dated and the article talks mostly about market share. Just because there's a data doesn't means it belongs on a page. Would you put the data of "How many people believe the earth is flat?" on the Earth article? This data is definitely very valuable and I do not dispute its accuracy, I just don't believe that this article is the best to put it. Illegal Operation (talk) 22:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
There are two issues here. The first is whether or not the information is valid. Exactly how out of date is this information? The second is whether or not this information belongs in the article. I think the answer to this is simple. If you want to compare mobile OSs then you go to Mobile Operating System and if you want to know about WP7 then you go to Windows Phone 7. If you wanted to know Windows Phone 7's marketshare, you'd go to Windows Phone 7. This information should be on the mobile OS page too, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be here. We all agree that this section shouldn't be a hate dump section and nobody is trying to put in anything like that (right now). What exactly are you afraid of having to clean up? Captain Stack (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I am afraid of the "sample" section I've posted above ^^^. At first, it was just a sentence talking about market share then it became a full blown hate section on Windows Phone. The other thing I don't want is a section that just list different market share data from different websites. Who knows, maybe a different site said that Windows Phone has 8% market share and another said that it has 6%. Are we going to list all of them? Illegal Operation (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Also, the market share data on the mobile operating system article is out-of-date. The data is from "October 2010". If Enemenemu cares so much about market share, why doesn't he update that page? Illegal Operation (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Illegal Operation: Please stop edit-warring. If you revert it one more time, I will report you to WP:AN/EW. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

If you do that, exactly who would write this article? If you look at the history, you'll see that lately, I am the one that almost exclusively writiting this article. Captain Stack has been doing a good job writing this article in the past, but the reality is that he's doesn't have a Windows Phone which makes writing this article extremely hard for him. Illegal Operation (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Did the thought ever occur to you that your repeated edit-warring is driving editors away from the article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't get into argument with most users. Also, the interest has on Windows Phone has dipped down since Windows Phone initial release and I don't expect it to spike-up again until Mango release: none of this is of my doing. Illegal Operation (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Also, I don't suggest that making threats: it doesn't help the discussion any. What will help is to reach a conclusion/compromise/whatever before doing anything further. Illegal Operation (talk) 02:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I just re-read the source (http://www.canalys.com/pr/2011/r2011051.html) and it said NOTHING about Windows Phone market share. Illegal Operation (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I've just read and re-read the source, and it does indeed say absolutely nothing about market share. So why is it being continuously re-added to the article? Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
It does address WP7's market share. It says that "Overall, worldwide smart phone shipments grew 83% to 101.0 million units." and that "Samsung also shipped nearly 3.5 million bada operating system-based smart phones, outperforming total shipments of Windows Phone devices by more than a million units.". Per simple math, (3.5 - 1) / 101 = 2.5% (apx). In any case, Illegal Operation seems to have ret-conned a rationale for his reverts. He only came up with this late last night but has been edit-warring for days. And it's not as if you can't find other sources for WP7's market share. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
What you are doing is original research. If the information didn't mention it, then it didn't mention it. Illegal Operation (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Two points:
If other sources exist I would prefer that we use those. Captain Stack (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
How about the following sourced to DailyTech and PC Magazine? According to Gartner, Windows Phone 7 has 3.6 percent of the smartphone market compared to 36 percent for Android, 16.8 percent for iOS and 13 percent for RIM.[3][4] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
WIthout looking too closely, those look pretty solid. I'd like to point out that that's a fair bit higher than the calculated 2.5 percent too. I give a thumbs up. Captain Stack (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I am looking at Gartner (http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1689814) which said that Microsoft has 3.6% market share, but that includes both Windows Phone and Windows Mobile. If you want to use that data, you're going to have to somehow say that it's the combine market share of the two OS. Oh, and keep it brief; I don't want a paragraph like the one I posted above. Illegal Operation (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
If you were wondering why I have a change of heart: I didn't. I just went to bed and when I woke up, I realized that I didn't really care anymore. So what if the section is messy and AQFK goes crazy? It's none of my problems. I have no intention of carrying on this reckless discussion any longer. Illegal Operation (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, Gartner does say 1.6 million WP7 phones were sold out of 100.7693 million. 1.6 / 100.7693 = 1.6% per WP:CALC. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
The sentence "This includes both market share for Windows Phone and the older and now defunct Windows Mobile"[5] is WP:OR. I don't think that the article actually states this. It might be fine as a footnote, but not article content. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
In that case, I will say that Microsoft has 3.6% in mobile market share and say nothing more: that way there is no question of original research. Also, iOS, Android, and RIM has nothing to do with this article and the second source didn't say anything except quoting the first source. If you want to talk about iOS's, Android's BlackBerry OS's market share, there's a place for that; it's call: Mobile operating system article. Illegal Operation (talk) 01:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
This isn't an article about Microsoft's mobile efforts overall; it's about Windows Phone 7 specifically. How can you discuss Microsoft's place in the market without including mention of its competitors? That's like discussion Pepsi's market share without mentioning Coke. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
"just 3.6 million smartphones using a Microsoft mobile OS were sold last quarter, for a 3.6 percent market share--and no doubt more alarmingly for Redmond, the newer Windows Phone OS saw unit sales of only 1.6 million." is the one of most biased statement I've ever read. Illegal Operation (talk) 02:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
All sources have a bias. Our job as Wikipedia editors is to cover what reliable sources are saying about the article topic as accurately and faithfully as possible without introducing any of our own biases. I don't think you'll find any source which say that WP7 is flying off the shelves. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Two things need to be fixed. 1. The article said Gartner, but the reference links to Cnet. 2. I will leave it at "Windows Phone 7 sold 1.6 million units" because the 1.6% is not necessary mentioned. Also, Captain Stack, I thank you for the cleanup. Illegal Operation (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
CNET is getting their information from Gartner. I think the way I had it before was better, because it showed WP7's relationship to its competitors in the market place. As it stands, the section doesn't contain much information and should be expanded. It fact, it only contains a single sentence. It reminds me of The Natural History of Iceland#"Concerning Snakes". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
The way it was before did not compare it to other OSs. All it said was that 1.6 million sales wwas "alarmingly low" or something to that effect. Really, this isn't the place for commentary on whether or not WP7's sales are good, bad, or alarming so I think we can agree that that doesn't belong. It is just a place to state its market share, so I think we can agree that that bit doesn't belong. Personally, I don't think this is the place to compare it to other OSs either. That would best be done on the mobile operating system page since this page is about Windows Phone 7. Captain Stack (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
It can be in both places. I don't think we should say "alarmingly low" but we should cover this topic in a manner that reliable sources do. So if sources about Windows Phone 7 are also discussing its low sales in relation to the rest of the industry, we should do the same thing. The section is only one sentence long. It clearly needs expanding. BTW, if you haven't already set up a Google News alert, for Windows Phone 7, I recommend that you do so. It's a great way to keep up on this topic.[6] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we have some fundamental disagreements about what belongs in Wikipedia pages like this because I'm reminded of the discussion over the missing/absent features section. I think of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia rather than a news source or magazine. I know there are many great journalists and analysts who are comparing Windows Phone 7 to other OSs, speculating about the future, and writing all sorts of great things about the OS. I just don't believe that Windows Phone 7 should be compared to other operating systems on this page just because the media makes these comparisons. This is why I didn't believe that a feature like copy and paste was "missing" just because iOS and Android had it. I think by adding this sort of content to the page, we force a comparison that shouldn't necessarily be made. I think this is the page where Windows Phone 7 is written about as it exists in space, so to speak. Captain Stack (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I think that you cannot possibly cover this topic in an encyclopedic fashion without including its place in the market place. Can you imagine an article about the Nintendo Wii that doesn't explain its runaway success and how it expanded the console market to casual gamers? Or how about an article about Windows Mobile that doesn't explain its failure to catch on with non-business users forcing Microsoft to abandon the product? What about non-computer subjects? The Edsel is known primarily for its failure in the market place. Same thing for Microsoft Bob. You can't just examine at a subject in a vacuum, the big picture is important, too. BTW, while not the best written article, Windows Mobile does have coverage of its place in the article. Please see Windows Mobile#Market share. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
A small note/correction; the section is two sentences (I know that's not a huge difference but w/e). You bring up some fair points. In the case of Windows Phone 7, I think its place and effect on the market are yet to be seen. We can talk about the Wii, Windows Mobile, and Microsoft Bob because enough time has passed to see exactly what happened. The smartphone market is still new, there are still many many players, and Windows Phone 7 is still finding its place. The smartphone market cannot support 6 major OSs (Blackberry OS, iOS, Android, Symbian†, Windows Phone, and WebOS). In the end there will probably be 4 at most but more likely 2 or 3. Players are going to drop out, some will adopt other OSs, and the market will settle. We can write about Symbian and Windows Mobile in this way because their time has come and gone but these current players are changing so rapidly I don't think we should be writing about their place and effect on the market yet. That said, you've convinced me that if you would like to add comparison to other OS market share I'm ok with it on one condition. I want there to be as little commentary as possible and for the numbers to speak for themselves. Does that seem fair? Captain Stack (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Those are reasonable points. I think your suggestion is a step in the right direction. How about:
It's just the cold-hard numbers without any commentary.
A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Looks good. If you want to dig up one of those pie charts that shows the usage share I'd be fine with that too. Would probably look good. Captain Stack (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
It seems like you and I have reached consensus for this change. And it seems in line with what Enemenemu was trying to add to the article. But what do we do about IO? He objected that time it was added to the article. Should we proceed without him? Is 3 out of 4 editors enough to say that we have consensus? Should we solicit Ajraddatz's advice or open an RfC? I'm really not sure what to do in this situation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
The point is that this article is about Windows Phone. This page isn't about iOS, Android, BlackBerry OS, Palm OS, Symbian, Bada, MeeGo, WebOS, etc. Their market share can all be listed, but this list gets infinitely long. Illegal Operation (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Also, what A Quest For Knowledge said about "You can't just examine at a subject in a vacuum, the big picture is important, too." is absolutely true. That's why it's already explained in the Mobile operating system, under history, but that information is not appropriate in this article. Illegal Operation (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Image if we talk about that: once upon a time, smartphones were dominated by Palm OS and Symbian, but Palm along with many other OEMs then concede to Windows Mobile. Then the iPhone came and share the market. Android then copied iOS.... This can goes on forever. That's why we only talk about Windows Phone on the Windows Phone article. Illegal Operation (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I am going to take a 3 days break from editing the article so don't pin anything on me. FYI, I added market share to the page just to pacify you (isn't that what you wanted?), but you discarded the whole thing so I don't know how any compromise can be reach. Illegal Operation (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't really like the way this section has been done. This should be the marketshare without commentary or comparison to other mobile OSs. I think the version we had a long time ago was better. Captain Stack (talk) 02:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Well this is what I wrote earlier: "Gartner reported that Microsoft has gain 3.6% market share worldwide in Q1 2011. This includes both market share for Windows Phone and the older and now defunct Windows Mobile.". Gartner didn't separate Windows Phone and Windows Mobile and simply lumped it together as "Microsoft" so I had to mention Windows Mobile. Anyway, A Quest For Knowledge removed that. Illegal Operation (talk) 02:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
An proposed update on the US market share. NPD now states US market share is 2% — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.54.154 (talk) 13:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Main problem with adding the NPD data is that different research companies use different methods to determine market share, hence it is in general not possible to determine trends when using numbers from different companies. You could, however, try to compile the NPD market share estimates for WM/WP Q1 2011 to the present, and then we could try to add these numbers to the figure. --Enemenemu (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Weasel Words

I noticed that a Weasel Words banner has recently been added to the Reception section. I wrote most of this section and so I'm wondering how other people feel about it. I think the information is highly accurate and much of it is well cited, but I do see what the editor was getting at when he added the banner. Does anyone else think this is a big problem and if so, how do you think it could be improved? Captain Stack (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, removal of the section may be the easiest option. Because the section is based on opinion, it's open to biased. Illegal Operation (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd be fine with that in all honesty. However, lots of other pages have reception section and I don't see why there should be so much controversy over this one. Isn't this how most Reception sections read? Captain Stack (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
To be honest, it's hard to write "reviews" without them being biased. We may have to list out the website to make it less "biased". It'll be an ugly mess, which is an issue. Illegal Operation (talk) 01:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I've just taken care of the ambiguity, but now it's a big mess. Captain Stack, I am wondering if you can help. Illegal Operation (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
If I'm being honest, I don't like this any better. Perhaps we can put it back the way it was. It was well cited. I think we can remove the banner, maybe rework the wording a little, and see if the issue comes up again. If it does, we'll try something else. I'm sort of busy right now, but I can do this myself if you give me some time. Captain Stack (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I will leave it up to you then. If you need any help, just tell me. Illegal Operation (talk) 23:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Should Windows Phone 7 mention its market share in comparison to Android, iOS and RIM?

Currently, the Market Share section says:

According to Gartner, 3.6 million smartphones using a Microsoft mobile OS were sold in the first quarter of 2011, for a 3.6% market share. Specifically, Windows Phone 7 sold 1.6 million units, hence achieving a 1.6% market share.[3]

Should the above be replaced with the following sentence which also includes Windows Phone 7's main competitors:

According to Gartner, Windows Phone 7 has 1.6 percent of the smartphone market compared to 36 percent for Android, 16.8 percent for iOS and 13 percent for RIM in the first quarter of 2011.[4][5]

The main 2 differences between the two versions are:

  1. The second version shows Windows Phone 7's percentages compared to its main competitors.
  2. The first version (the first sentence specifically) also includes Windows Mobile, an older OS that Windows Phone 7 replaces.

A lengthy discussion can be found here.[7] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

And there's a bunch of sources claim that Native Americans not Christopher Columbus discovered the Americans. What does that have to do with the United States? Illegal Operation (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the article on the United States does explain what Columbus and Native Americans have to do with the US. Please see United States#Native Americans and European settlers. So, by your own analogy, it should be included in the article. In any case, you can't simply dismiss that many reliable sources without a good reason. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I am talking specifically that Christopher didn't "discover" the United States. I wasn't talking about Columbus or Native American specifically. Anyhow, what I was saying wasn't clear enough. Illegal Operation (talk) 01:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose on the basis that the market share is already expressed as a percentage and not raw numbers. No further comparison with competitors is particularly relevant to this article, since 1.6% is already clear that it is a low-end minority market share. Comparisons of more detail belong in the article on smartphones as a whole, not on each individual article. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support with the proviso that the second should also be phrased in the past tense. This is an encyclopedia, not news, so any statement about the first quarter of 2011 which is already passed, will just get more dated as time goes on. A quick summary of market share is very relevant, as is quick mentions of its competitors. Another idea would be to further summarize, instead of giving numbers that appear to be misleadingly precise; market "research" is just a guess in reality. Maybe just mention something like "market share in the first quarter of 2011 was estimated to be fourth, after Android, ...." or something like that. W Nowicki (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Neutral I'm neutral on this, though I'm starting to wonder why Illegal Operation always tries to delete any new NPOV information regarding market share? -- Enemenemu (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Of course Windows Phone market share should be compared to competitor's operating systems. As long as it is reliably sourced, and the inline text states where the statistics came from. As the text already says, Microsoft's CEO Ballmer has already stated that WP7 market share is "very small". This is now an indisputable fact, that should remain in the article. Most other household-name products' market shares are compared to competitors. This should be no different.--Lester 02:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support In the proposed state, merely presents facts that are useful to the reader. As long as this data being in the article doesn't present a platform for POVs, I think it should be included Jebus989✰ 22:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Exactly what does other mobile OS have to do with anything? If people want to read about Android's market share, they'll go read the Android article, not here. Illegal Operation (talk) 05:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - agree with the points that this article isn't about general smartphone market share. But I also note the proposed text is highly misleading, ignoring Symbian, which was in 2011 Q1 the number two best selling smartphone platform (and number one in previous quarters). Mdwh (talk) 10:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Mango (pre-release) reviews

I know this does not have much to do with Wikipedia, but you guys might want to read the review of Mango from WPCentral and Pocketnow. Apparently, they were able to get a hand on a pre-release version of Mango. The test phones are Samsung Focus: hallelujah, that's the phone I am using. Illegal Operation (talk) 04:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for rumors, nor a product fan-site, nor a website for fan discussions. Thanks--Lester 00:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Did you read? I specifically said "I know this does not have much to do with Wikipedia". Illegal Operation (talk) 05:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merging and rename

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Windows Phone 7 → Windows Phone –

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Windows Phone "Mango" version number

There recently seem to be confusion about Windows Phone "Mango" version number, so I will clarify just that. Windows Phone "Mango" is officially Windows Phone 7.5, but its version number is 7.10.7720. Illegal Operation (talk) 04:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems more to me like the official version number is 7.10, while it's informally referred to as Windows Phone 7.5. Going on the MS website, Windows Phone 7.5 isn't mentioned, it's just Windows Phone. - The Frederick (talk) 05:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
It is called Windows Phone 7.5 here: http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?displaylang=en&id=27570
The build number itself is 7.10.7720. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VividNinjaScar (talk • contribs) 09:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Merge: It's a major update, but just a software upgrade nonetheless. This article is already lacing information, and discussion of changes to it in a seperate article would be silly. Merge the two.--Ktlynch (talk) 09:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

European launch

Back then it was launched just in 4-5 countries. Continent-wise WP7 devices still not being sold (except grey import) and expected not early of October 2011. I think it would be more correct to list countries instead of continent. Elk Salmon (talk) 08:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

'Windows PhoneS' should get redirected here

But instead it is going to Windows Mobile. Can someone please fix it. Abhishikt (talk) 01:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Done.--Luca Ghio (talk) 08:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Removed Features from predecesor

Where should we list removed features from its predecessor (Windows Mobile)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.127.207.152 (talk) 13:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that this shouldn't be included at all, as Windows Mobile and Windows Phone are two completely different operating systems (a bit like comparing Windows 3.1 to Windows XP). Though if other editors wish to add this I'm fine with that. pcuser42 (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
We had a section for this a long time ago. It caused a huge amount of controversy and frankly I don't have the time or energy to see this article through that again. If you simply must include this in the article I must emphasize that it is strictly a section for/about features in WinMo that are not in WinPhone. Many people wanted a section called "Missing Features" and it became a dumping ground for stuff editors didn't like about Windows Phone. This is NOT what Wikipedia is for. So to summarize, I do not condem or condone a section for removed features as long as it is very carefully currated. Captain Stack (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
The answer is no. There was already a long long discussion about this. You can check it in the archive. Illegal Operation (talk) 04:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
The previous discussion was about listing absent features in general. This discussion is about listing removed features from the predecessor. Could you explain why you want to prevent this useful listing in this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.127.207.152 (talk) 07:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
The discussion was titled "Features Removed From Windows Mobile 6.5". What part of that do you not understand? Illegal Operation (talk) 20:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
The name of this article used to be Windows phone 7 which suggested an upgrade from Window mobile 6.5, so I am not sure whether the list of missing features still belongs here. I used to argue that it belonged here. Andries (talk) 09:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I think the list of missing features (comparing Windows phone 7.0 and Windows mobile 6.5) belongs in Windows Phone version history. Andries (talk) 09:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
It seems Windows Phone version history page was removed. Should we list all the removed features on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.125.215.192 (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Content (from [8] and current version) put at List of features removed in Windows Phone 7.0. Ianteraf (talk) 08:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Version history – disappeared??

Where has the Version History gone? It was on the Windows Phone version history page (last edit before redirect: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_Phone_version_history&diff=454654707&oldid=453148989 ), yet the editor that did that has not even bothered to move the info across correctly. Not good behaviour! -Jimthing (talk) 04:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

WSJ resource

Nokia Preps Return to U.S.; T-Mobile USA Expected to Offer New Windows-Powered Lumia Phone by WILL CONNORS, CHRISTOPHER LAWTON and SPENCER E. ANTE, excerpt ...

Nokia Corp. is gearing up to introduce the U.S. to its first device powered by Microsoft Corp.'s latest Windows software for smartphones, an attempt by the Finnish handset maker to break into the lucrative American market. The debut will come next week when T-Mobile USA plans to announce that it will distribute the device, called the Lumia, at an event it is co-hosting with Nokia in New York, said a person familiar with the matter.

99.19.45.187 (talk) 05:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Too much rumor/speculation (Apollo)

I think we should keep this article to what we know, not what has been leaked or speculated. Microsoft has released no details about Windows Phone Apollo. In fact, I don't even know if they've released the code name for it. I don't think they've officially said anything about Tango either. What does everyone else think? Captain Stack (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Well Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so if it can't be reliably sourced it doesn't get included. pcuser42 (talk) 04:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I do agree that Apollo/Tango are based more on speculation than anything else. In fact, we haven't even seen this "leaked" video which so far has only been viewed by Pocketnow staff. I am NOT saying that we shouldn't be able to talk about leaks on Wikipedia, but rather that the leaks be verifiable: (for example) if were we were able to watch the video ourselves. Illegal Operation (talk) 07:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Opinions and WP

Please do not cherry pick opinions to suite your POV and to create bias on the article, regardless if it's positive or negative. This is an article about a mobile phone OS and environment. This is not a sandbox to address any religious-like feelings pro or con any particular mobile phone platform, model or brand.--Caygill (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Lack of neutrality at Partnership section

What is the reasoning behind not keeping the end of the LG partnership but keeping the start of the LG partnership? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.137.200.15 (talk) 08:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The partnership with LG has not ended. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not a matter of a lack of neutrality. It's a matter or relevance. Right now, the section basically reads "LG abandoned Windows Phone but then they didn't." I don't see the need to include that. Until we know their longer term plan, we shouldn't include it. In the long run, a brief stint where LG wasn't making Windows Phone won't be relevant. Captain Stack (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Until we know LG long term plans, we should keep LG intentions to not develop Windows Phones. When the long term plans are published they can be appended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.137.126.251 (talk) 09:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Windows 7 upgradeability section seems to be not correct or updated

The upgrade section, and also the references about the paragraph, are based about rumors and personal opinions and articles of third party actors. By now, not Microsoft and even Nokia have confirmed the possibility, or the impossibility, to update the Nokia Lumia series to Windows Phone 8. Instead, we have a video about a Microsoft Evangelist who told that all devices will be upgraded to Windows Phone 8. At this time, as we know, partners are doing all they can to take the information for themselves and not to spread to public domain. Take care that what said by the Evangelist can not be the reality, too.

The link to video: http://wmpoweruser.com/microsoft-evangelist-confirms-all-windows-phone-7-handsets-will-be-upgraded-to-windows-phone-8/

I can advice to add the linked rumor font above to the notes, and also to state that at this time we have not confirmation made from manufacturers to how to upgrade to Windows Phone 8. Also, at this time, even the new OS architecture and functionalities are not far more of a rumor.

XDarinor (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I've added the "Dubious" tag to the 'Upgradeability to WP 8' section. While Thurott is usually a reliable source, he was unable to identify his "off the record" source at Microsoft. In the absence of an official statement from manufacturers, all we have is rumour. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the video linked to by XDarinor I would point out that Nuno Silva quickly retracted some of what he'd said. See http://blogs.msdn.com/b/nunos/archive/2012/04/19/my-comments-on-windows-phone.aspx Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Michael Kroker is a journalist quoting an anonymous source at MS. The reporting in "Wirtschaftswoche" (German language weekly economy periodical) he writes for is in general quite reliable. Anyway, the official answer will probably be announced by MS on June 20. --Enemenemu (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Deutsche Telekom now confirms that the reason they are not offering the Lumia 900 is that it cannot be updated to WP8. Reference has been added. Thus this issue should now be settled. --Enemenemu (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
No current Windows Phone can be upgraded to Windows Phone 8, as confirmed by Microsoft, but they will get Windows Phone 7.8. pcuser42 (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

new article for WP8?

Looking at various new features in WP8 and non-upgradability from WP7, should we create new article for WP8? -Abhishikt (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

As of right now, there is not enough references to be an article. maybe when it's releasedGreg Heffley 15:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, definitely - WP7.x and WP8 should have separate articles - they even have separate kernels (CE and NT). Whether we wait for release or do it right now is a separate issue. Also, there should be WP8 equivalents of Features new to Windows 8 and List of features removed in Windows 8. Ianteraf (talk) 07:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Currently WP8 is described at Windows_Phone_version_history#Windows_Phone_8 and Windows_Phone#Windows_Phone_8. The new articles (at release date or sooner) should be Windows Phone 8, Features new to Windows Phone 8 (if too many to fit in the main article) and List of features removed in Windows Phone 8 (if there are any features present in WP7.x that are removed in 8.0). Actually, there are already many sources describing WP8 - official from MS, leaks, etc. Ianteraf (talk) 07:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Move to Windows Phone 7

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus that there needs to be multiple articles at this time. Cúchullain t/c 16:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Windows Phone → Windows Phone 7 – I am planning to split up Windows Phone 7 and 8 because WP8 will use Windows NT instead of CE from WP7. However, part of the plan is moving this page to 'Windows Phone 7'. So, I am starting this discussion to move it. WinEuro (talk) 04:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Do we really need separate pages for Windows Phone 7 and Windows Phone 8? Windows Phone 8 changes the kernel but it is not something that the user will directly see. For the user Windows Phone 8 is just some new features to Windows Phone 7. For example Windows Mobile and Windows Phone share the same kernel but they are so radically different that they are incompatible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.53.8.192 (talk) 06:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
By that logic, Windows 98 and Windows 2000 don't really need separate articles as the user won't notice the different kernel. However, like Windows Phone 7 and 8, they are different versions of the same line of software. With that said though, I support the move, but not solely because of the new kernel. pcuser42 (talk) 07:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
The average user might not see the difference between 7 and 8, but I'm sure you'll get a different answer if you ask the business users, the IT-department, and the developers. Technically speaking, Windows Phone 7 and 8 are two diffent things (judged from the presentation at the Windows Phone Summit). Right now, there's not a lot of reliable sources about Windows Phone 8 (I don't regard rumors from Paul Thurrott or Mary Jo Foley as reliable), but judged from the presentation at the Windows Phone Summmit I think is fair to say that Windows Phone 8 will need it's own article. I support the move. - Meewam (talk) 12:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
It seems premature to move now because Windows Phone 8 may later need its own article. That does not require Windows Phone 7 existing as a standalone article, and, even if it did, is something easily done when it is needed. There is, after all, no pressing deadline here. --Nouniquenames (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Windows Phone 8 and Windows Phone 7 must be separate pages. They are quite different. We must also emphasize that Windows Phone 8 begins the fragmentation of Windows Phone by not allowing older devices to upgrade to this new version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.146.165.250 (talk) 13:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I still oppose, as this can be done in a unified article. --Nouniquenames (talk) 06:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I support the idea. It seems that in retrospective Windows Phone 7 would stand out as a version between two platform (as opposed to other versions belonging to one of them), so that having a separate article on it would make more sense. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll need two more posts here until I move it. WinEuro (talk) 23:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a note, you do not have the ability to move the page to a new name. Do not do a cut and paste move like you did earlier as that messes up the attribution. The current page at Windows Phone 7 will have to be deleted by an admin before the page Windows Phone can be moved there if that is the consensus move but normally Requested moves are listed for 7 days before they are moved. GB fan 00:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Yep, I agree. Tuankiet65 (talk) 00:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I think that the Windows Phone page should not be completely removed or become a brief stub linking out to the other pages. I would prefer that the Windows Phone page be pretty extensive, though there should probably be Windows Phone 7 and Windows Phone 8 pages devoted to details about the specific versions. Bottom line, I think the main Windows Phone article should have detailed information about the current version.

On another note, though, I contest this line from the article:

In the interest of ensuring it is released with devices designed to take advantage of its new features, Windows Phone 8 will not be made available as an update for existing Windows Phone 7 devices.

If I recall correctly (I do), Microsoft has said that because of the move from the CE to the NT kernel, it is simply not possible to update current devices with the new operating system without extensive changes to the NT kernel. Lordcheeto (talk) 02:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposal to move "Windows Phone" to "Windows Phone 7" Immediately

I noticed there was discussion about moving the article "Windows Phone" to "Windows Phone 7", and having a new, shorter article for "Windows Phone" that would summarize the development history of both versions. I propose we should do this move now, because the launch of Windows Phone 8 is in one month. The group of Windows Phone articles right now is very cluttered, doing the move would make a lot of sense and make the set of articles more organized.Gamer9832 (talk) 18:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Should Android (operating system) and iOS have different pages for each mayor version to be coherent with Windows Phone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.137.183.25 (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Each version of Windows does, as does each version of OS X. pcuser42 (talk) 08:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Sure, but they (Microsoft Windows OS X) also have a common page where info common to all versions is documented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.137.183.25 (talk) 10:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Which is exactly what's being proposed. pcuser42 (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest you follow the procedure at WP:RM#Requesting a single page move because this just went through this process in June and there was no consensus to move it. The consensus might have changed so you should follow the procedure if you think it should be moved. The process should only take about 7 days. GB fan 21:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Windows Phone should be an overview article for the history and commonalities, but since WP7.x and WP8 are very different OSes they should both have individual articles such as Windows Phone 7 and Windows Phone 8. Ianteraf (talk) 06:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

"Hardware" Section

I perfromed an edit lately, which was later reverted, due to "good faith". My reason was because it appeared like this. For some reason, on Android's browser, FireFox, Chrome on a Windows PC... it appears fine. That's odd, because I had problems with Chrome before, on Windows Live and Yahoo. Does anyone else had these problems? It's obviously a problem with the browser's interpreter. Galzigler (talk) 01:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi.
Your link to Google Docs does not work. It says I have insufficient permission. But I believe you are referring to this edit. You moved the picture to the left, which is nothing automatically bad. But in this specific case, the picture causes a wrapping effect that made the article look not so good on widescreen displays, say on 1600×900 or wider display. So, I reverted it.
One minor note here: Actually, the edit was made in good faith, not revert.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 02:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello again
Thanks for resolving your Google Docs link. I now see what your problem is. Judging by your screenshot, you are running Google Chrome on Ubuntu operating system. So, I took screenshots from my own Ubuntu. Here they are: 800×600 and 1024×768.
Since everything looks good on this end, can a third person please confirm if there is the problem?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Information about Windows Phone 7 has disappeared

Unfortunaley, with the move from Windows Phone 7 to Windows Phone and changes to content, the new article lacks useful information about Windows Phone 7.

Moreover, Windows Phone 7 and Windows Phone 8 should have separate articles, given their very different architectures, features and deficiencies compared to other mobile operating systems.

The Windows Phone article also lacks any Criticism section and this adds to the article's lack of NPOV.

I am not sure if I should make changes, if user Illegal Operation starts again edit warring again, owing to all of his past history. -Mardus (talk) 15:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, another reason for separate Windows Phone 7 and Windows Phone 8 articles is that Windows Phone 7 has gotten several versions already, such as 7, 7.5, and 7.8. Attention to all these is now in neglect within the context of Windows Phone 7. -Mardus (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we should have separate articles for WP8, WP7.x and maybe also an overview WP article (here). Ianteraf (talk) 08:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Move has been completed. See my section below for details on the move. Gamer9832 (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Move Completed

I have completely moved portions of the Windows Phone page over to the new Windows Phone 7 page. I've moved portions only specific to Windows Phone 7, and kept sections such as those on market share, Store, and general Windows Phone development history on the main Windows Phone page. I've moved sections specific to Windows Phone 7 only, such as hardware requirements, and WP7 development history over to the Windows Phone 7 page. An issue right now is that the Windows Phone 7 page seems to have a lot of overlap with the main article over the "Features" section. Gamer9832 (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

windows Mobile Vs. Windows Phone

Windows Phone 7 is as incompatible with W.P. 8 as it is with W.M. 6.5, having the same applications marketplace doesn't equate to being the same software. W.P. 7 has the same built in features (Windows Live, M.S.N. & Bing Mobile) as both the previous and the next O.S. W.P. 7 and W.M. (all versions, including Pocket-P.C.'s) are built on the Windows CE kernel, while W.P. 8 is built on Windows NT. W.M. 6.5 devices aren't compatible with W.P. 7.x devices, and the same goes for W.P. 8

I suggest a merger for Windows Mobile and Windows Phone, all component articles treat the software as the same (I.E. Internet Explorer Mobile, Microsoft Office Mobile, Etc.). --112.203.154.11 (talk) 13:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose merger. Windows Mobile and Windows Phone are two completely separate product families, but Windows Phone 7 and Windows Phone 8 are related (despite having different kernels). Windows Phone is not backwards compatible with Windows Mobile, but Windows Phone 8 is backwards compatible with Windows Phone 7.x apps. pcuser42 (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Support merger. The software such as Microsoft Office, Windows Live, Connectivity, Bing, Windows Live Messenger and Internet Explorer work on both, an MS Office file created on Windows Mobile would easily work on Windows Phone, there is an article here on Wikipedia called List of features removed in Windows Phone 7.0 which treat it as a successor operating system rather than a new family.

Microsoft officially confirmed that Windows Phone 7 devices are Zune devices (although I would not suggest merger between these 2 articles) and neither do Zune apps work on Windows Phone 7 but the software does. Windows Phone 7 syncronizes with the Zune Software, while Windows Phone 8 syncronizes with the Windows Phone app and Windows Mobile with Microsoft ActiveSync and the Windows Mobile Device Center, Zune doesn't recognize Windows Phone 8 as a Windows Phone device the same way ActiveSync and/or the Windows Mobile Device Center recognize Windows Phone 7.

Samsung's Omnia series treat Windows Mobile and Windows Phone 7.x the same, while it introduced Samsung ATIV for Windows 8 and Windows Phone 8, I'm not saying that device series equal software series as Sony (Ericssons')'s Xperia replaced Windows Mobile with Linux-Android. Despite the Windows Marketplace for Mobile Windows Mobile and Windows Phone 7.x are almost fully compatible. All Windows Media Player files play on Zune for Windows Phone 7 (even more than on the Zune devices). Windows Mobile 6.x's marketplace isn't avialable on Windows Mobile 5 and older so using apps exclusively for backwards compatibility would make Windows Mobile 6.x a seperate product family. The Windows Phone team claims that if they had more time they could've made Windows Phone 7's marketplace with Windows Mobile 6's.

No device branded Pocket PC was ever created for Windows Mobile 6.x so in itself Windows Mobile 6.x could be viewed as a seperate family of products using the app compatibility as sole indicator. --86.81.201.94 (talk) 11:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Windows 8 advantages over other

Corporations and enormous consumer groups will recognize with the ability to manage large numbers of Windows 8 gadgets, together with a built-in Company Hub app, Bitlocker encryption and Secure Boot technologies. Lack of enterprise administration tools has been cited as an impediment to large companies embracing Android. Whereas enterprise administration options exist, Android’s fragmentation means they don’t work throughout the board. Next, phones like <spammed link removed> Nokia Lumia 1020 and Nokia Lumia 920, none of mobile stand up against in terms of camera capability.

C and C++ - Developers will have the ability to code for Windows 8 using C and C++. The languages themselves aren’t so important, but assist for them means coders will be capable to utilize popular libraries, as properly as do native DirectX-primarily based recreation development. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hateman20 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Criticism in lead

Is it really appropriate to have "The main criticism of Windows Phone is the lack of applications" in the lead? The lead is supposed to explain what it is, not go into unnecessary details that potentially contravene WP:NPOV. pcuser42 (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

That is why it must be in the lead. Otherwise the page would not be neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.137.119.31 (talk) 10:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Explain? I can understand having it in the article somewhere but not necessarily the lead. pcuser42 (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
The most important information goes in the lead. As you can see from the many references, this is an important information, Everyone talks about it. That is why it must be in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.36.44.47 (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
It has absolutely nothing to do with the operating system's basic functions, so it shouldn't be in the lead. It's what people think about the operating system-- and is a claim that is highly disputable and subjective if you use WP on a regular basis (there are many great third-party alternatives, like 6tag[Instagram], that are better than the actual app on Android and iOS). And to follow precedent, OSX, which has few apps compared to Windows, does not have that in its lead. Gamer9832 (talk) 05:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
It can not be subjective if the media and even Microsoft talks about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.146.167.199 (talk) 14:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
That logic doesn't make sense. Microsoft also says Windows Phone 8 is based on Windows NT for example, but that doesn't make it subjective. pcuser42 (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Also, to the person who keeps adding the app criticism: Please make a single account and stop hiding behind multiple IP addresses. If you are so set on your argument, don't be afraid to defend it in front of everyone.Gamer9832 (talk) 03:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gamer9832 (talk) 03:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Exactly, this person has been undoing my edits with no compelling reason (if any at all). Also, as per WP:LEAD this discussion has no grounds: Do not violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section. --Lprd2007 (talk) 04:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree completely with you, but this was the only way to stop him/her from making these edits without going to an admin or locking down the entire page because of an edit war.Gamer9832 (talk) 22:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

"Update" to Android

Would you think information about this possibility belongs here [9]? I know WP isn't a how-to but I'm looking for if it's possible to upgrade to Android or even run concurrently (being done on desktop Windows in a WM I guess). If anyone finds better info (maybe for a specific phone), I would like to know. I guessthat could be appropriate for those phone pages. comp.arch (talk) 11:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Windows Phone isn't Windows Mobile. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 06:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/windows-phone-7-8-update-launched-for-nokia-lumia. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Windows 10 Vs. Windows Phone (battle of the brands)

I think that Windows 10 for phones should be in this article (under history), but I disagree with the fact that it treats it as a part of the Windows Phone brand, any new developments regarding Windows 10 should be noted on the Windows 10 page, the history article should include "Microsoft has downplayed specific references to the Windows Phone brand in relation to it. However, critics have still considered the operating system to be an iteration and continuation of Windows Phone due to its lineage and similar overall functionality." but not any developments made independently in Windows 10 for Phones as the change in brand doesn't make it a part of "Windows Phone" in a similar manner to how developments of Windows Mobile in relation to Windows Phone played an important part in its early development, but not any developments made independently within Windows Mobile itself.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 01:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Agreed, Windows 10 and Windows Phone should frequently refer to each other in articles (since Windows 10 is a successor to 8.1 and 8.1 apps can run on 10), but having it under the Windows Phone brand will lead to further complications in the future as Microsoft continues it's universal branding. NeoGeneric (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Succession

@Pcuser42: please take a look at pages Windows R.T. Windows 8.1, and Windows Phone 8.1, all of the aforementioned pages have listed Windows 10 as their successor, announced upgrades whether released or not are considered successors, if the software in question was vaporware it could be disputed, but historically every successor announced has been released so it pretty much follows the guidelines, if you revert my edit again I won't revert yours until we can come to a civil conclusion here in the talk page. Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 08:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

None of this changes the fact that Windows Phone 8.1 is the current version of Windows Phone and Windows 10 isn't actually available for public sale yet. pcuser42 (talk) 11:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
@Pcuser42: I never claimed otherwise, I just stated that if a successor is announced that it's listed, Windows Phone 8 listed Windows Phone 8.1 as it's successor since late 2013, depreciated present day software still links to the successor, so I followed Wikipedia's guidelines. Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Reverting an edit, and then placing it back again.

@Some Gadget Geek: Something I have noticed some editors do before (including ViperSnake) but have not confronted you with is reverting and then basically putting the same or similar information in the article, in Windows Phone you first reverted my edit before basically replacing it with the same line, minus a link to Microsoft Lumia, I could be immature and do the same to you, but I'll bring it to your attention instead, as it simply would've been easier to only remove the link to Lumia.

And also here is why the partnership should have Microsoft Lumia as a "main" link to it, before Microsoft acquired Nokia's telephone assets the Nokia Lumia Series grew out of this partnership and stood there as a "main article" for the entire sum of this history, and as Microsoft's Windows Phone hardware efforts are concentrated on Microsoft Lumia and not Microsoft Mobile Oy as a whole it would be better to include both as it would indicate that Microsoft Mobile Oy is the relation(ship) that grew out of this partnership, or at-least the main entity to be created out of it, and Microsoft Lumia remains the most Windows Phone-relevant page as Microsoft Mobile is an umbrella for basically all of Nokia's assets. I will put it back for the time being (by a simple edit, not a revert), and I'm open to a reason why it should be removed from the list of "main" articles in the section.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 06:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC) (Alternatively Namlong618)

Pardon, I didn't see how you worded it, it looks fine, but still, instead of reverting my edits you could've simply re-organised it, a revert in this context was unnecessary. I won't change the text as it's correctly worded, but still it's useless to first revert someone's edit, and then basically writing the same with small adjustments (splitting it into "main" and "further reading" as these are closer to my edit than the previous "see also").
Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 07:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC) (Alternatively Namlong618)
OK, I fully accept your explanation and I'll adjust the hat-note to your heart's content. (I was just giving the WP:revert feature in WP:popups a try to see how it works differently compared to the WP:undo option.) <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4
  1. ^ http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1689814
  2. ^ http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2386538,00.asp
  3. ^ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20064223-17.html#ixzz1POqi39Fa
  4. ^ http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1689814
  5. ^ http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2386538,00.asp
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Windows_Phone/Archive_4&oldid=1146627567"