Talk:Microsoft hardware/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comments

I guess the author totally ignored Kinect. I do not know much about Xbox and Kinect but I read somewhere that Kinect was one of the MS devices that has a Guiness entry for fastest selling devices. We have a page dedicated to it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinect

Should I add it (but I have almost zero experience of the product) or will any of you do that?

Kiran Kumar (talk) 13:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Dubious claim

For some reason it is stated that the Microsoft devices and Microsoft hardware groups are separate entities, while in the Microsoft engineering groups page it is claimed that these are made by the same groups. --Cookie Nguyen (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Disputed

Given that User:Benjohnofbom has accepted that Microsoft Accessories is not a division of Microsoft, can I assume that there is no opposition to reverting this article back to being about the Microsoft Hardware Group, which actually has existed as a division of Microsoft? Merging the list of Microsoft hardware back into the article can be a separate discussion. Dancter (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Both Microsoft hardware and Microsoft accessories are no longer divisions of Microsoft. Any search on the net or on official website will make it clear. Hence redirecting to List of Microsoft hardware. List of Microsoft hardware is a better article (as is List of Microsoft software). Hence the title is better than Microsoft Hardware Group or anything else.

Please correct my work if I am wrong.

Thanks to all170.248.189.79 (talk) 06:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, actually Microsoft Hardware never was a division it was the title of the article that basically does the same as "list of" only the title would give away that the article should contain more backstory and history, but as for some reason the only little history that was included got deleted by User:Benjohnofbom who also removed the only reference from that article it basically became a list.

--42.114.33.55 (talk) 06:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Wrong Microsoft Hardware today is called "Microsoft devices" and is a part of the "Windows and devices" division. --58.187.161.153 (talk) 08:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused. Whether or not it was a "division", everything I've seen has indicated that the Microsoft hardware group was an actual entity, and likely still is, in some capacity. Why would they celebrate the 30th anniversary of something that didn't exist? Dancter (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I have searched. It is not clear. Please walk me through it. Also, just because something is no longer extant does not mean it should no longer have an article. The Roman Empire, Pacific Bell, and Nintendo EAD still have articles. The primary format of encyclopedia content should be articles, consisting of contextual prose. Lists should be considered supplementary material, at best. List of Microsoft hardware is not a better place to cover Microsoft hardware if the subject can be covered in an actual article. As I said, that is a separate discussion. Also, this discussion should not have been cut-and-pasted to another page. To anyone who is doing this: editing the substance of other peoples talk page posts and user pages (including links) is bad form, even to bypass redirects, and cut-and-paste moves of any pages (especially active discussions) is also bad form, as it creates a hash of contribution histories, and defeats the ability to monitor changes through watchlisting. Dancter (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Microsoft hardware was never a division. The same is also stated by user 42..... . Just an article wrongly created and existed for years. 30 years celebration is about first hardware product the mouse , not for the start of division. Hence list of Microsoft hardware is the best place for the contents. Even though i believe only a Microsoft employee can give us clearest details....

And again the link https://www.microsoft.com/hardware/en-us/30-years-of-hardware points to microsoft accessories website only. Isn't it a group then?

Anything different manufactured by company doesn't always has a division. Also companies can have overlapping divisions based on different classifications. See this: Microsoft#Businesses, again which is not clear and stated as outdated.

And if anything is not clear as said by you, why not to keep in a list as lists are allowed items on Wikipedia.

Please dancter, 42..., 86.... and others. resolve this edit war into something meaningful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.188.229.6 (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2016‎

Responded to duplicate comment in other thread. Dancter (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose the move: The link https://www.microsoft.com/hardware leads to Accessories page. Some region specific hardware sites, for eg https://www.microsoft.com/hardware/en-in still point to Hardware page, but they are in process of name change... 170.248.189.79 (talk) 05:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Support the move as the original Microsoft hardware article and category were way better than the mess we got afterwards and both moves were completely unprecedented and WP:OR in fact the only source used by User:Benjohnofbom was the home page of the website for Microsoft made accessories, which goes both against WP:SOURCE and WP:OR. --58.187.161.153 (talk) 08:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 30 December 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Microsoft hardware. There is a consensus that there is no division or department within Microsoft called "Microsoft Accessories" so the present title (with the caps as a proper name) is untenable. There is also a rough consensus this page should be moved to "Microsoft hardware" and expanded to cover hardware that Microsoft has produced as well as an overview as what has been marketed under this 'label' (for lack of a better term) and if the sources exist to write about a division called "Microsoft Hardware", which apparently no longer exists, then that can be included too. No opinion on merging the list article into this one, that is an editorial decision. Jenks24 (talk) 12:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

---

Microsoft Accessories → Microsoft hardware – I dispute the changes of the article about the Microsoft Hardware Group into being about a "Microsoft Accessories" division (which I do not believe ever existed), as well as the subsequent changes into a straight redirect to a List of Microsoft hardware page that lacks any information about the Microsoft Hardware Group. Dancter (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 12:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Microsoft hardware was never a division. The same is also stated by user 42..... . Just an article wrongly created and existed for years. 30 years celebration is about first hardware product the mouse , not for the start of division. And again the link https://www.microsoft.com/hardware/en-us/30-years-of-hardware points to microsft accessories website only. Isn't it a group then?

Anything different manufactured by company doesn't always has a division. Also companies can have overlapping divisions based on different classifications. See this: Microsoft#Businesses, again which is not clear and stated as outdated.

And if anything is not clear as said by you, why not to keep in a list as lists are allowed items on Wikipedia.

Hence list of Microsoft hardware is the best place for the contents.

Even though i believe only a Microsoft employee can give us clearest details....

Please dancter, 42..., 86.... and others. resolve this edit war into something meaningful.

180.188.229.6 (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

"Microsoft hardware was never a division."

I disagree. The Microsoft Hardware Group was once referred to as the Microsoft Hardware Division.

"The same is also stated by user 42..... . Just an article wrongly created and existed for years."'[1]

I disagree with their assessment. Just because more people believe something doesn't make it more true.

"30 years celebration is about first hardware product the mouse , not for the start of division."

Please provide some examples of ways in which I am misinterpreting the text of that article. The anniversary was celebrated in 2012, thirty years after the division was formed. If it was about the company's first hardware product, it would have been celebrated in 2013, thirty years after the Microsoft Mouse was shipped.

"And again the link https://www.microsoft.com/hardware/en-us/30-years-of-hardware points to microsft accessories website only."

That's not the URL I provided.[2] If you are reaching another page through the link I offered, I cannot assess what you are seeing, because it is different from what I am seeing. From what I see through your link (which, again, could be different), the actual content of the article refers to a Microsoft Hardware Group. I can provide direct excerpts of what I am seeing, if necessary.

"Isn't it a group then?"

A name change of the Microsoft Hardware website to Microsoft Accessories does not necessarily mean that the name of the group changed. There may no longer be such a group.[3] Again, that has not actually been proven. No source has been provided referring to Microsoft Accessories as an organizational entity, as opposed to being simply a product category. You are making inferences that are not explicitly supported by the provided sources.

"Anything different manufactured by company doesn't always has a division. Also companies can have overlapping divisions based on different classifications."

Okay. As User:42.114.33.100 mentioned in the Talk:Microsoft engineering groups#Explanation for layout thread, Microsoft doesn't actually manufacture many of its products,[4] but point taken: divisions are different than product classifications. That is part of my point. The relevance of the fact that divisions overlap is not clear to me. This was an article about a division. You are trying to redirect to a list about a product category.

"And if anything is not clear as said by you, why not to keep in a list as lists are allowed items on Wikipedia."

Yes, lists are allowed. As I said, that is a separate discussion that is not my primary dispute. Your moves and redirects of this article are what I am disputing. What was not "clear" to me[5] is your specific claim that "Both Microsoft hardware and Microsoft accessories are no longer divisions of Microsoft," as supported by "any search on the net or on official website."[6] I have presented my case with links to specific sources. Dancter (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose the move: The link https://www.microsoft.com/hardware leads to Accessories page. Some region specific hardware sites, for eg https://www.microsoft.com/hardware/en-in still point to Hardware page, but they are in process of name change... 170.248.189.79 (talk) 05:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I already presented my argument. Regardless of what https://www.microsoft.com/hardware represented before and where it redirects to, https://www.microsoft.com/accessories/ is apparently about a product category, and includes no statement about a "Microsoft Accessories" as an organizational entity. Your argument is a synthetic claim which violates Wikipedia's policy against original research. Dancter (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

We just need a more general Microsoft Hardware page like we had before, even if the name changes "Microsoft hardware]] still means "hardware produced by Microsoft" (which is now under the Windows & Devices division), I don't understand why the page Microsoft hardware was moved to "list of Microsoft hardware" because a list page would leave no room for exposition and explanation of the Microsoft hardware division (later Microsoft Devices), we don't need a WP:MOVE we need a WP:MERGE and a lot of expansion and I'd be happy to include more information about the Zune, Microsoft Surface, former Nokia-made devices, and the Microsoft Band and their evolution within the company epitomic within a single Microsoft hardware page, the only problem with "Microsoft hardware" is that no editors took the page serious enough to write it into a good article and just let the list exist and then different editors started disputing the list, one wanted to only include accessories, the other wanted to delete all content and make it a redirect, and another wanted to restore the old version and no one simply saw that the real error was with the fact that the article itself in every form explained so very little as to what it is, I think that we should follow WP:READER and include a history section, source it better (as that is still something both articles are lacking resulting in a lot of WP:OR) and keep the list, and not divide it into current and former just products produced by the list as Wikipedia is not a news site because some users want to constantly delete entire pages and sections because "the product has been discontinued" and they think that it should therefore no longer be present on Wikipedia, anyhow the overall style of the Microsoft hardware article needed to be improved and if we'll have another article about the real, actual Microsoft Hardware Group then I'd be happy to dig up sources. --58.187.161.153 (talk) 08:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

That reads like support for a move to Microsoft hardware. As long as the "Microsoft Accessories" claim is resolved, and that there includes some coverage of the historical existence of a "Microsoft Hardware" I would be fine with that. Regardless of the ultimate subject or destination of this page, for the sake of revision tracking, I think an actual page move away from Microsoft Accessories should still be performed.

This was supposed to be a simple, straightforward, uncontroversial, minor proposal focused on correcting a specific claim that I consider to be false. I was not intending to dedicate any serious effort into building an article. This has taken up much more time than I expected. Given some recent edits ([7], [8], [9], and particularly [10] as compared to [11]) I believe that there isn't much point for more prolonged discussion. Dancter (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that it's just best to WP:MOVE and WP:MERGE now back to the old status quo, it was way more user-friendly (WP:READER), and had more sources, please make the edits you've wanted, I'll try to expand the content and find additional information, but an article like this needs time and everyone always seems to be in a hurry here on Wikipedia (ironically going against Wiki-policy). --42.114.35.42 (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Given that User:Benjohnofbom has "retired,"[12] and User:Joseromeo237 tried pushing the merge forward on their own via cut-and-paste, I think the consensus is to have an article at Microsoft hardware, drawn up as you described. It just depends on an admin or someone with the tools to actually perform a proper move. Dancter (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Archive 1