Template talk:Windows Phone

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Microsoft This template is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrosoftWikipedia:WikiProject MicrosoftTemplate:WikiProject MicrosoftMicrosoft articles Microsoft Windows: Computing This template is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microsoft Windows on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Microsoft WindowsWikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsTemplate:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsMicrosoft Windows articles This template is supported by WikiProject Computing. Software: Computing This template is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles This template is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Since Windows Phone is not the same operating system as Windows Mobile (they even are incompatible). I am going to remove references to Windows Phone from Template:Windows Mobile if no one disagrees.

I made a change. The change has been effectively reverted. I'm changing it back to my version. Here's why: Having that link on the top implies that all of those things mentioned in the article are not available in Windows Phone, where most of the things are actually in Windows Phone 8. So it really is something that belongs on just WinPho7. McKay (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

I am writing this in response to the removal of the link to Windows 10 (mobile) link by EndlessCoffee54.

The revert summary reads: "Just BC an OS is similar to another does not make it another version of WinPhone". Actually, the article says that it is a version of Windows Phone:

As such, the Windows Phone brand has been phased out, and Microsoft promotes the version as being an edition of "Windows 10" rather than as "Windows Phone 10"—even though it continues to carry lineage of Windows Phone

So, it is Windows Phone, except in the name. In fact, if the article had not already been in violation of WP:CRYSTAL, I'd have proposed renaming this template instead of banishing the link.

Oh, an one more thing, EndlessCoffee54: Remember in the last discussions how people told you there is no second R in WP:BRD and responding to a revert with a counter-revert is wrong? It applies here too.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this argument is ridiculous. The only reason the article says that is because a person (who is misinformed) wrote it. Just because it was written on Wikipedia does not make it a fact. The fact is that Windows 10 is not Windows Phone. Microsoft doesn't aim to "continue the lineage of Windows Phone" or whatever that means. It means to do away with Windows Phone entirely. It's why MS has merged the YouTube and Facebook pages for Windows and Windows Phone, over recent months has stopped referring to WP in product names, and why Joe Belfiore said Win 10 for mobile is just "Windows 10". The idea that you have made up that some lineage is being continued just doesn't make any sense. By that logic, Win10 for mobile could be a version of WinRT, since it continues "the lineage of WinRT" as being a ARM-based Windows tablet platform. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 06:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I contend that it's perfectly fine to include Win 10 for mobile under Windows 10 in the Windows infobox. It is a successor to Windows RT as well (which was listed under Windows 8), and that was also a purely tablet platform for ARM tablets. The days of Microsoft making an OS purely for phones (which is what Windows Mobile and Windows Phone are) are over.EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 07:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EndlessCoffee54: "The only reason the article says that is because a person (who is misinformed) wrote it." It has three sources.

"The fact is that Windows 10 is not Windows Phone." And now you have become "a person (who is misinformed) who wrote it"! WP:BURDEN Where is your source?

"I contend that it's perfectly fine to include Win 10 for mobile under Windows 10 in the Windows infobox." Contend so whenever you had source.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two articles, by the Verge and Digital Trends, saying that the name "Windows Phone" is dead: http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/windows-phone-dead-windows-10-instead/, http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/21/7868109/microsoft-stops-using-windows-phone-name. Here is another Lumia Conversations post, where Microsoft states clearly that "Windows 10" succeeds "Windows Phone": http://lumiaconversations.microsoft.com/2015/01/22/the-lumia-you-love-gets-even-better-with-windows-10/ Windows Phone is dead. Even Joe Belfiore during the presentation said that "we are simply referring to this release as Windows 10". Windows Phone has been discontinued. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EndlessCoffee54: This is a navbox; it is not a vessel for pushing a certain point of view. As long as two items are sufficiently related, they get listed. Did you even read your own sources? DigitalTrends.com says "Goodbye Windows Phone! Windows 10 will take it from here". That means there is a predecessor-successor relation between "Windows 8.1" and "Windows 10 for mobile" (name not yet finalized).

Also, naming follows WP:COMMONNAME, not by "Joe Belfiore". Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Codename Lisa: I can agree with it remaining in the template and being renamed as all the services, development, history will still remain relevant, but here is my problem with renaming the template ¿what should we call it? ¿"Windows for Phones"? because that would include Windows Mobile, ¿how about "Windows-branded mobile devices"? that would include both Windows Mobile and Windows R.T. there simply isn't a catch-all name this template could have that would exclude Windows Mobile and/or Windows R.T. from it, and though Windows 10 for Phones is a continuation of Windows Phone, it doesn't carry the Windows Phone brand, and is actively being promoted as a version of Windows 10, it has no place in this template as Microsoft has clearly stated that they're discontinuing the Windows Phone brand, as for the internals of the operating system none of us know, and literally every news site you can find can only list rumours, Microsoft has released no information about the internal software of Windows 10 for Phones, so we can't make any premature judgements based on a quick show event, and a Lumia Conversations article plus a handful of Tweets, sure people are going to write a lot about it, but literally nothing about the software has been confirmed except for the Universal Apps we saw during the January 21st event so no side holds more ground than the other, also I have written a few arguments in the Microsoft Windows Family Template, if you're willing to counter my arguments (dispute) I'd want to see the reasons why it should not be listed under Windows 10 as an apropos, that aside since the conversation is here I've laid my argument why renaming the template can be disastrous, but then again Windows Phone 7 was constantly in the Windows Mobile template too, so it's safe to say that we should wait until any official statements regarding its (Windows 10 for Phones) underlying operating system before jumping to quick judgements.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CRYSTAL, Wikipedia may not engage in such frivolous acts until the name is finalized. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that's WP:CRYSTAL I thought this was a discussion on finding a new suitable name for a plausible renaming of the template, I wasn't predicting anything to be announced by "outside forces" only that renaming the template could have disastrous consequences if it wouldn't be done properly, which isn't "predicting" anything, it's merely stating that we must pick the name wisely, nor was I suggesting to add Windows Mobile and Windows R.T. to the template, but I just stated the potential that if we'd not rename it properly that it could have such an effect (much like how you yourself included Windows XP and Windows 8.1 editions that were specifically designed for mobile devices to the template of Mobile Operating Systems because by the definition used they fit right in).

Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 09:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EndlessCoffee54: Maybe it'll help if I list the consequences of WP:COMMONNAME:

1. Microsoft no longer produces anything called VB.NET are you will have a hard time finding this string on its website; yet, Wikipedia calls it VB.NET or Visual Basic.NET. That's because the rest of the world do.

2. Windows 8 and all its predecessors are called Windows NT Wikipedia although it is more difficult (but still reasonably possible) to find the term in Windows. Microsoft just avoids "NT" like a writer who avoids using "he" or "she" in conjunction with a certain character's name.

3. The name of IE has undergone slight changes every now and then; sometimes it is Internet Explorer, sometimes Windows Internet Explorer and sometimes Microsoft Internet Explorer.

Windows Phone have been using NT kernel since Windows Phone 8. So now, Microsoft has dropped "phone" from like when it dropped ".NET" from VB. They are still similar enough to be in the same infobox. (So similar that 8 can be upgraded straight to 10.) Fleet Command (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments is not with the underlying components (yet unknown) but with the branding of the concerned article(s).

1. Microsoft moved a product from one established line of brands (Windows Phone) into another established line of brands (Windows 10), Visual Basic.NET is different because "the successor products" simply don't belong to a succeeding brand (though one might argue that that's Microsoft Visual Basic).

2. That's the kernel, in the past it was used in such a manner on Wikipedia as both Windows Mobile and Windows Phone 7 were listed as "Windows C.E. articles", kernels don't actually make the operating system, Mint is not the desktop version of Google Android, but they both run the Linux kernel, the issue concerns branding and Windows 10 for phones and small tablet-P.C.'s does not belong to the Windows Phone brand, but to a new established line of brands.

3. The brand in this case remains persistent, the brand is "Internet Explorer" not "Windows" nor "Microsoft" and both brands are used interchangeably, but the article itself remains "Internet Explorer", nowhere has Microsoft yet announced that Windows 10 for phones and small tablet-P.C.'s is "Windows Phone 10" so it's not really comparable.

Though to make an argument against myself here an article can be rebranded and listed under both (see Windows Live Hotmail which belonged to Windows Live and Microsoft Outlook.com which is a part of Microsoft Office Online, and Windows Live SkyDrive which belonged to Windows Live and Microsoft OneDrive which is a part Microsoft Office Online) these are in fact different iterations of the same underlying software, but different branding for the latest iteration (which is comparable to your 2nd example where Windows N.T. is underlying in most 21st century versions of Microsoft Windows but are branded differently, this is the same case again, from most of what's known it's Windows Phone underneath, but that's like placing Windows Phone 7 in the Zune template because it has Zune built-in, though the template should be listed bellow the article, the article itself should not be included because they may (closely) related subjects, they're still different.

Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 09:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Namlong618

So, you finally decided to log in? Anyway, nice to see you. Now, going over the points:

1. We don't know that yet. I don't believe fortunetellers. But what stopped you from arguing that Microsoft discontinued VB.NET and continued developing the classic VB?

2. Actually, it is quite the opposite; Wikipedia and many others call it Windows NT kernel because it is found in Windows NT. U.S. government trademark database says Microsoft has registered Windows NT as a trademark and has updated it several times.

3. Just because you see two consistent words in them doesn't that's the brand. We have Microsoft Office, Open Office, Star Office and lots of other programs with "Office" in their names but they are not part of the same brand. On the contrary, Word, Excel, PowerPoint and other members of Microsoft Office family don't have "Office" in their names anymore but are still part of the family.

And why do you keep writing the names wrong? It is "PC", "NT", "RT" and "CE", not "P.C", "N.T", "R.T" and "C.E". Also be careful: "B.S" is Bachelor of Science; "BS" is "bullshit".

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 18:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Codename Lisa: Wrong, I don't write them as "P.C" I write them as "P.C." it's a type of abbreviation similar to how some people might use "lol", "LOL","LoL", "L.o.L." or "L.O.L." and as P.C. is an abbreviation rather than brand-name using dots to differentiate them just like there are people who write without any diacritical marks (for example coup detat as opposed to coup d'état) and I have yet to hear anyone make "an argument" against that style anyhow when I link them I do it to their proper articles for example Windows RT|Windows R.T., but an argument against someone's writing style isn't an argument at all (especially since I never write like that in the articles themselves).

1. Nothing, I just said that it could go either way, but it's hardly comparable to our present situation.

2. So the kernel lacks a brand and people assigned it to it, I was wrong I'll admit it, but Windows 10 is a different case it's not like Microsoft has a "nameless" product and we're calling it "Windows Phone" because there is no other choice.

3. "Office" existed long before Microsoft Office, that isn't an argument at all, this is uncomparable in several ways. A) Windows 10 and Windows 10 Mobile are actually being produced by Microsoft. B) Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, Microsoft PowerPoint, and Microsoft OneNote have all been branded "Office" in fact at one time they were called "Office Word", "Office Excel", and "Office PowerPoint", and Microsoft OneNote was introduced as "Office OneNote". C) the branding of the products in this case are unimportant as they're all included in Microsoft's Office suite of applications and are only found on www dot microsoft dot com slash office and are always noted as being parts of Microsoft Office or Microsoft Office Mobile, unlike Microsoft Word Windows 10 Mobile has never been branded by Microsoft as "Windows Phone" nor advertised as a part of that family. D) Windows is an established brand and Microsoft is just merely adding "a member" to "the family".

Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is currently being settled on the Windows 10 for phones and tablets talk page. I agree with Codename Lisa completely that we should wait until the official name is finalized (which will likely be resolved soon as the Windows 10 for phones preview is released later this month). Although, from what it looks like now, everything will be named "Windows 10", so it certainly can't be listed under Windows Phone. We'll see when the preview is released. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can we just agree that Windows Phones will run Windows 10 (or whatever they deign to call it by RTM) in the future, and that's good enough to have it listed in the versions section of the template? This whole argument seems to be much ado about nothing, and y'all need to take a breather. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 23:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not whether it's a continuation of Windows Phone (the software) or not because it is, but that this template should only represent the Windows Phone brand, Windows 10 is a new family of brands and products and thus deserves its own special notice, and since any template patrolled by our resident "I don't care if other stuff exists" type of editor (which completely neglects that Wikipedia's policy is that if other stuff exists that it can be considered a good argument if it can apply in the same situation, but some editors place their own personal opinions above policies) the article can either be completely in the template or not in the template at all as they can't compromise and add useful things like adding a small 1 and place an explanation next to it (something that happens on most other templates, but the editors of Windows-related templates somehow seem to hate that feature). So this edit war was born on whether Windows 10 could be here or not, I'd say let's compare it with Microsoft Zune and Microsoft Xbox Music, Wikipedia treats Microsoft Xbox Music completely different from Microsoft Zune, though in the M.S.X.B.M. article there are several references to Microsoft Zune, it's still quite clear that it's a new brand (though one might even find the local folder of the Windows Store app and see that the application is still called "Microsoft.ZuneMusic"), this is because a brand (Microsoft Zune) was absorbed by another family of brands and products (Microsoft Xbox), this is exactly the case now as an existing family of brands and products (Windows Phone) is being absorbed by another family of brands and products (Windows) thus will be marketed and viewed as such, I don't know why some people simply can't place the fact that Windows Phone is first and foremost a brand, think of how incompatible Windows Phone 7.X and Windows Phone 8 are, but anyhow it's not ours in the end, I personally want to refrain from writing anything on this issue until the mediator has made a verdict, and anyhow we don't know enough about Windows 10 Mobile to make a judgement now, from day 1 I've been saying it, and I'll say it again, we don't own a magical crystal ball that can see into the future and accurately write Wikipedia articles on things that are yet to come, so the best thing either party can do is wait for Microsoft to release more details.

Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Copied from a personal talk page]

I never claimed that the Nokia X platform was part of Windows Phone, I placed it under "related" because it's graphical user interface is based on Windows Phone's, when doing the edit in the template I even said that I'd like to dispute placing it among related or not, so far I feel neutral about it being or not being there and would remove it, let's have this discussion in the talk page of the concerned template so other editors can say yay's and nay's concerning the issue, of-course it's presence/absence in the "related" section of the template is purely based on the superficial similarities of the platforms and that Nokia/Microsoft Mobile Oy developed Nokia X in vision of copying Windows Phone, the relation is similar to Microsoft Vs. Linspire (previously Lindows) though less as at-least these 2 (two) were compatible between each other, again it's only there because of the superficial similarities and I won't mind it not being there.

I'll copy-pasta this message to the concerned page's talk page so the conversation will be open to more views. Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know that WP:ASTONISH says that you should never use contemporary names for example as say "Germany" instead of "the Holy Roman Empire", even in historical contexts, but I wonder if using Groove instead of Xbox Music works here as on Windows Phone the name still appears as Xbox Music and it might fall under WP:TOOSOON. --118.71.102.111 (talk) 05:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]