Talk:Windows Phone/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Iffy Content in Application section

Before this devolves into argumentative minutia, I propose the following - Let's look at the top ten mobile apps, and list whether or not they are present, or are planned to be present, on the platform? This is of obvious GREAT value to the reader. Of course, we should exclude from that list mobile apps do not appear on two or more of the major platforms. MbdSeattle (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Changed title to reflect actual goal of the proposed removal of information about widely used application(s) that are not or will not be present on the Windows Phone 7 platform. MbdSeattle (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

MbdSeattle, please attempt to work with the other editors here. That action was uncalled for.Captain Stack (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

CaptainStack, you buried the most important part of your proposed edit deep in your post here. That's inappropriate. The title should reflect the point here. The use of the discussion section should be sincere, and not just an excuse for deleting sections with which you and at most half the active editors here feel reflects badly on the WIndows Phone 7 platform. MbdSeattle (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

"Burried it deep"? I had two concerns and listed one after the other. Yes I think that certain edits are more important than others, but I also intend to address both. And I find your acusations of collusion, people being paid by Microsoft, and that we delete everything that reflects poorly on Microsoft far more inappropriate. I lobbied for the deletion of the entire reception section because it was grossly positive, and had what I consider to be praise or very uninteresting aspects of the platform (the keyboard is good and it is the most "unique" OS for example). Also, most phone platforms don't have a reception section. I also haven't deleted the content about missing APIs, the content restrictions, and the criticism that there is too much flipping and sliding (in the reception section). All of these I think reflect poorly on the phone but are verifiable, and relevant to the article. I give reasoned arguments about why I think my edits should be made. You think a criticism along the lines of "Windows Phone 7 is now failing both its intended customers and the company's historic customers" which simply says that the platform sucks and gives no reason why belongs in this article. You fail to see why the editors who oppose you do and often ignore their arguments, and you completely blew off my SINCERE attempt to make a little peace with you on your talk page. I know you aren't going to leave so I am asking you again to please try to understand the other editors here and work with us. I've edited many articles with users I did not agree with, and yes it was frustrating, but never have I seen an editor who so viciously treats other editors. Captain Stack (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Normally I'd just edit this out and see if it causes trouble, but since this article has become so touchy I'm bringing it up here first. Here's the current section:

Microsoft created a new division of Microsoft Game Studios (MGS Mobile Gaming) to develop Microsoft games for Windows Phone 7. The company announced in August 2010 a list of Xbox LIVE-integrated games that will be available for Windows Phone 7. These include versions of popular games such as Guitar Hero and UNO.

Although Pandora was announced as a launch partner, Pandora has announced they have no plans to produce an app for the phone.

Among the applications shown during Microsoft VP Scott Guthrie's keynote address were a Netflix search app and the Coding4Fun t-shirt cannon, which is controlled by the phone's accelerometer and has a user interface designed by 352 Media Group.

Windows Phone 7 supports removable SD cards, however when the user replaces the SD card, all of the data on the phone is lost and the device defaults back to factory settings, some of the user's data can be retrieved on the phone by using a Windows Live ID. This is because Microsoft engineered the OS so that there would be one, unified file system used throughout the OS for storage of data.

The last paragraph doesn't seem to be particularly fitting in the application section. It seems to be more of a feature, or belong under security or some other section. Not sure which so let me know what you guys think.

I'm also concerned about the sentence about the specific apps that are mentioned. Guitar Hero and UNO are alright I suppose because they are specific examples of a feature and app platform that is being talked about. However, the Pandora one seems like should be deleted. This isn't a list of apps for Windows Phone 7 and it certainly isn't a list of apps that Windows Phone 7 doesn't have. I find that the fact that it was announced to be coming at launch but has since been cancelled to be irrelevant. I mean, if a video game was going to be released on the PC but then was cancelled, you wouldn't put "Though Starlancer 2 was announced for the PC, it has since been cancelled" into the computer, PC, or Windows article. Let me know what you guys think. Captain Stack (talk) 10:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Most of the content in applications section is out-of-order. As I requested earlier, with the renaming of Applications sections and its sub-sections, the content needs to be segregated properly. As you can see in its sub-section Development (which should be Applications Development or third-party apps dev imo), there is redundant content about missing compass API and other current discrepancies (while most of them are scheduled in 2011 1st quart updates anyway) which should be under missing APIs sections. Some people (WP7 hatreds) are still fending off the idea of elaborating the phone features prior to explaining its shortcomings in quite an irrational and mocking way! --Pak1standby (talk) 15:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

talk:CaptainStack, I object to the removal of the Pandora reference. Your reasoning to keep Guitar Hero and UNO (that they ar e"being talked about") justifies also the presence of the Pandora reference. The absence of one of the most popular mobile applications from the platform is a VERY important piece of information. Pandora is being talked about, and the absence of Pandora from Windows Phone 7 is being talked about. MbdSeattle (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I would be fine with removing Guitar Hero and Uno, but I stand by what I said. They are more appropriate here because they are examples of the Xbox Live integration which was the subject of that part of the section. The Pandora application not being present comes out of nowhere. No other platform has a list of applications not avaialable. Captain Stack (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

A long list of applications not available, of course, is inappropriate. I had considered adding "Mozilla" also, as another example of an app that has opted out, but it is not significant enough in the mobile space to warrant listing. The criteria here should be whether the information contributes to a reader's understanding of the platform. The absence of Pandora does. Mozilla does not. The presence of certain major third-party apps too should be listed.MbdSeattle (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

If we listed major third party apps you wouldn't feel like it was blatant PR? I would (and yes I feel that mentioning apps that they don't have is the opposite, whatever you call that). Windows Phone 7 launced with Netflix, UVerse TV, Office Mobile, Facebook, Twitter, etc etc. The problem is, who decides what's an important app to mention. And once you mention one, how do you decide which others to mention. Eventually, it will either become a list, or it will be a random app shout out for no reason. I really don't think we should specifically mention any apps because it opens the door to too much. And no I don't think we mention everything that contributes to the user's understanding of the platform. We don't list the prices of the phones for instance. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a buyer's guide. Captain Stack (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

CaptainStack, instead of doing the following: CaptainStack says "the quality of the page has really taken a dive There is one user stirring up a lot of trouble", why don't you look at the section below that proposes a good way for us to find a way to collaborate and still allow information with which we disagree to remain? I am OK with lots of information on this page with which I disagree. You need to grow to the occasion as well. Remember, WikiPedia is not about winning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MbdSeattle (talk • contribs) 20:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Intelati did a lot of good work on this page and it needs it now more than ever. I won't deny that you were the one user I was talking about, but I didn't ask Intelati to shut you down. I simply said that you were making things difficult and that he (Intelati) would help make things better. He has a lot of experience on Wikipedia, and has helped resolve a lot of stalemates in the past. And this hasn't been about "winning" but I strongly disagree with some of your edits, and I even more strongly disagree with your etiquette and its begun to ware me down. The process was working fine until you took an interest in this article. Your section below is a big step forward, but you've only just started taking this sort of action. The only action that I regret on this article is removing your section too soon before discussion (the supposed premature deletion discussed at the top of the Sales Estimate in Launch section on the talk page). At the time I had no idea t would stir up so much trouble, I got my proposal thumbs upped by one person and that was all I really needed. Other than that, I don't think any of my actions have been unjustified, or unwarranted. At worst, I may have been a tad unpolite or sarcastic at times, but we're all human here. It happens.Captain Stack (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

All of my edits improved the page, except for one (my protest posting, which I should not have done). Clearly, we are not going to come to agreement on what should and should not be on this page. What needs to stop is the baton-passing between the reverters of good contributions.

The absence of negative information is what got me interested. I worked for a search-engine optimization company a while back, and the activity in here smells of it. Parties with an agenda have no place in WikiPedia. Large firms can, and do, hire armies of folks to edit and otherwise manipulate social media. In my opinion, this is why this article is troublesome, and not because somebody showed up and added some balance. MbdSeattle (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

There has never been an absence of negative information in this article. The article talkes about missing APIs, Microsoft's content restriction of the marketplace, some of the features that the platform doesn't have, and criticism of the media. A lot of it wasn't presented in a negative way. For instance, "Microsoft mandates that all handsets have a compass but at launch the API for development will not be ready" is not negative. It simply states a truth that isn't favorable to Microsoft or the platform but it doesn't have to be "negative". Like Interframe said, neutral point of view doesn't mean that you have equal positive and negative things on the page, it means that good information is presented and done so in a non-biased way. You may think all your edits improved the page, but multiple other editors were quick to show you they disagree, and the way you reacted to that was at times overbearing. I respect your zeal and that you are standing up for what you believe in, but Wikipedia is about collaboration and working with other editors is maybe the most important thing that happens here. It isn't easy but it's something hat we have to do to make these articles everything they can be.Captain Stack (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the purpose of this "list". What makes Pandora Radio or some other applications so relevant? I went to Europe and nobody has heard of Pandora Radio. Windows Phone 7 has many other radio apps such as "Last.fm" and "Slacker Radio" which are my favorites. Also, there is no shortage of "negative information": the article list that Windows Phone 7 is missing XYZ features, some of which I do not think WP7 even need. CaptainStack is right and that everybody was getting along fine until you show up. Yes, you are free to edit, but why do you feel such need to fight those editors whom have come before you? Illegal Operation (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I went to Asia, and Asia doesn't even have Windows Phone 7 yet. So let's delete the page. Come on! This is nothing but games. MbdSeattle (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

What I am trying to say is that "top ten apps" is very subjective. Top ten apps of what? Besides, many platforms have compariable apps if that apps is not present. Illegal Operation (talk) 03:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

(What's available vs what isn't:) I agree with Illegal Operation. There are atleast THREE comparable substitute applications for pandora in WP7; Zune and LastFM by MS and Slacker Radio app and users are happy with them. If it is imperative to keep the information about pandora, then in order to retain the balance, info about the working alternatives is also vital & worth-mentioning for the end-users (unless your intent is just to prove WP7: 'flop'). --Pak1standby (talk) 05:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I said exactly that a few comments back. And I agree. Add 'em, or at least add the most significant alternative. Maybe a special section on Audio is warranted. After all the audio on most Windows Phone 7 phones is great. But, that's due to hardware, not the OS, so not sure how to roll it in. MbdSeattle (talk) 05:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand how you would determine what goes on this list? Illegal Operation (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Remove Search-Engine Optimization Content (Long Lists of Phones and Partners)

Some of the long lists of partners and devices are likely for search-engine optimization rather than for providing reader value.

These should be pared down to a shorter list of major partners or devices, and maybe a count, but a link to any and every launch partner and device, regardless of significance, amounts to WP:SPAM.

Any objections? If not, I'll clean these up in the next day or so. MbdSeattle (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree in principle, but perhaps it'd be best to post a draft of your final product before you put it in.Captain Stack (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is since Android article also list the partners as can be seen here: "On the 5th of November 2007. the Open Handset Alliance, a consortium of several companies which include Texas Instruments, Broadcom Corporation, Google, HTC, Intel, LG, Marvell Technology Group, Motorola, Nvidia, Qualcomm, Samsung Electronics, Sprint Nextel and T-Mobile was unveiled with the goal to develop open standards for mobile devices.[5] Along with the formation of the Open Handset Alliance, the OHA also unveiled their first product, Android, a mobile device platform built on the Linux kernel version 2.6.[5] On 9 December 2008, it was announced that 14 new members would be joining the Android Project, including PacketVideo, ARM Holdings, Atheros Communications, Asustek Computer Inc, Garmin Ltd, Softbank, Sony Ericsson, Toshiba Corp, and Vodafone Group Plc.[32][33]" Illegal Operation (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

So long as you agree that , in general, the presence of equivalent information on the Android page also justifies it here? That is great criteria, with which I totally agree! MbdSeattle (talk) 01:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Windows Phone 7 and Android are totally different operating systems and the articles may need to be structure differently. Remember, both operating systems are in totally different stituations. I am not saying that what is done in one article must be done in another. It is simply a reference in time of doubt. Certain things appropriate for one stituation may not be appropriate for another and certain things may appropriate for both. For example, you may wear a suit to your friend house and to your office and you may wear t-shirt to your friend house, but you may not wear t-shirt to your office. In other words, go and read iOS and Android to get a base of reference, but do not force the Windows Phone 7 article to adopt the stucture of those other articles. Illegal Operation (talk) 02:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Windows Phone 7 and Android are totally different operating systems -- the biggest difference being the sales figures. But, you won't learn that single most important difference on this page. No, because while it's on the Android page, the operating systems are different and therefore it does not belong here. MbdSeattle (talk) 04:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I say it's very important that Samsung is a partner and is marking phones and that AT&T is selling's Samsung's phone. I don't see why you want to remove it since it doesn't contain objectable content. It's also an undeniable fact: either someone is or isn't a partner. Illegal Operation (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

(Help Wanted) Restructuring\Reorganizing Internet Explorer Mobile Article

Internet Explorer Mobile article is severely neglected. As a core experience of Windows Phone 7, I feel that it is of vital importance that the article be restructured. It is a big task, however, and I cannot do this alone. Therefore, I am requestion assistance for the clean-up at Internet Explorer Mobile article. Illegal Operation (talk) 06:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Compared to what I know about Windows Phone 7, my knowledge of Internet Explorer Mobile is pretty lacking. However, I'll see if I can assist you. If nothing else, I can talk about some of the features. CaptainStack (talk) 09:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to help. Please remember that the article is about Internet Explorer Mobile in general, since its 1st version as Pocket Internet Explorer in Windows CE. A clean-up should not make the article all about the IE version that comes with WP7 --Chris Ssk _talk 11:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Many of you may notice that I have now made some cleanup to the article. Illegal Operation (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to provide a table containing User-Agent strings against different versions of IE Mobile?--Pak1standby (talk) 07:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Unlike the desktop Internet Explorer, the user agent is device specific. It is reasonable to provide the generic user agent of the latest version of IE Mobile at Internet Explorer Mobile article, but the user agent of previous version of IE Mobile should go into the list of user agents for mobile phones article. Illegal Operation (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Basically, part of User-Agent string is device-specific, otherwise it implies the browser version and that of OS, to wit; WP7-IE's User-Agent string looks like; Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows Phone OS 7.0; Trident/3.1; IEMobile/7.0; <DeviceManufacturer>;<DeviceModel>). On Internet Explorer Mobile article, a separate section will make sense if a table containing generic UA-strings for windows mobiles is created and device specific IE-mobiles' UA strings are updated on list of user agents for mobile phones page. --Pak1standby (talk) 11:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The Internet Explorer Mobile article should only contain the user agent of the latest version of Internet Explorer Mobile. Do we really need the user agent of Pocket Internet Explorer 1.0 for Windows CE 1.0? Tell me if you like the changes I made. Illegal Operation (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking nice! just remove the Windows-IE7 similarity thing because half of that string and IE7's aren't alike especially the actual UA-string IE7 uses has no Trident maybe due to the reason that the trident versioning came after IE7. BTW the compatibility mode IE7 requests do contain trident version...but again its 4.0 --Pak1standby (talk) 14:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't we keep the whole user agent? This is exactly what user agent WP7 sent to websites. BTW, IE7 Mobile can be set to "mobile" mode and "desktop" mode. When set to desktop mode, IE7 Mobile sent a user agent similar to desktop IE7 on Windows Vista.

IE7 Mobile "mobile mode": Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows Phone OS 7.0; Trident/3.1; IEMobile/7.0; <DeviceManufacturer>; <DeviceModel>)

IE7 Mobile "desktop mode": Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.1; XBLWP7; ZuneWP7) Illegal Operation (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Nice info. I have updated the section accordingly. --Pak1standby (talk) 05:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I am mistaken. Windows NT 6.1 is Windows 7; Windows NT 6.0 is Windows Vista. Oddly enough, Windows 7 shipped Internet Explorer 8 so it cannot have given a user agent similar to that. I have updated the page. Illegal Operation (talk) 05:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge Windows Mobile and Windows Phone

Windows Mobile was basically renamed Windows Phone. You'll even find that some of Microsoft's Windows Mobile 6.5 ads were advertised as 'Windows Phone'. Thus, both Windows Mobile and Windows Phone 7 should be combinded to create one article named Windows Phone. Mackenziepricee (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Windows Mobile and Windows Phone 7 are entirely differently operating systems. In fact, they are made by totally different teams. Windows Phone 7 is made by the Zune HD's team and Windows Mobile's team has been disbanded. Illegal Operation (talk) 03:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a tricky one for sure. I generally think that having them seperate makes things more clear for sure. They are completely different OSs but it is fair to call Windows Phone 7 the successor to Windows Mobile 6.5. However, with no backwards app compatibility, almost completely different code bases, new branding, and coming from different Microsoft teams, I think it's pretty fair to keep them apart.Captain Stack (talk) 06:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with a merge, merging them will create a long article (over 100K). As per WP:SS, Windows Phone 7 has its own article with a summary in Windows Mobile. --Chris Ssk _talk 10:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The Windows Mobile article is already a long mess. The length of this article already shows that Windows Phone 7 does in fact need its own article. --Interframe (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Restructuring "Applications" Section

The "Applications" section is too overly technical. In fact, it's so technical that probably only Windows Phone 7 apps developers understand what is written. I propose a restructuring. We can probably move some of the information from the Windows Phone Marketplace aricle. Illegal Operation (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I have been thinking this for some time as well. I'll write up a draft and post it here to see what everyone else thinks. Captain Stack (talk) 03:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Two points: the applications hub is somewhat a parent category or a box in which all the third-party/marketplace stuff reside. So, imo this jargon must be common for both technical and non-technical users. Also, the article must be organized entirely w.r.t the concept of hubs, namely; Applications hub, Videos hub, Musics hub, Office hub, Games hub and People hub as Microsoft designed, modeled and presents their program to the world (we can make seperate headings for these hubs and start populating the content while removing the duplicates from the article). Secondly, I guess removing the missing API and development constraints is a good idea iff you are filtering out the technical details about the existing ones. First line second paragraph of Development, that you are suggesting, may get interpret as if currently they are not offering a single API. While on the contrary, only a few numbers of APIs are missing for application development. Imo, either the discussing about API should be published thoroughly with both existing and lacking/upcoming ones or we leave this discussion about the API as a part of technical element for the application developers. Your call! --Pak1standby (talk) 05:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW the Samsung Focus image in the applications section is looking great. --Pak1standby (talk) 05:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Pak1standby, I am glad you like the image. Also, we will have a big job mashing the section together. Illegal Operation (talk) 06:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Captain Stack, go ahead and post your version of the section and we'll edit it afterward because the draft is getting out of hand. Illegal Operation (talk) 06:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeap that’s great Illegal Operation. I think we can start new iteration by introducing Hubs section after Features and before Applications. That would make things more organized and segregated. Right now, as we can see, the discussion about hubs is scattered in the entire article. Either we can (refine later, that is;) keep authoring the new section and leave any duplicates until we are done or wipe the duplicates alongside. --Pak1standby (talk) 06:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Bringing up Deletion of Reception Section (again)

Ok so this has been thrown around a lot before but I'm going to ask again if people think that the Reception section should be deleted. To me, the praise and criticism seems very general and uninteresting. "The keyboard is great!" "There's too much sliding!" "The OS is unique!". I don't know why anyone cares. Also, I don't think any other mobile OS articles, or even full OS articles have a reception section. There could be one or two exceptions to this, but I don't think it's very common. I think this section should be completely deleted. What does everyone else think? Captain Stack (talk) 10:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should touch the reception section. After two pages of discussion and making compromise, everyone seem to agree some part of it. After all, if it's not broken why fix it? Illegal Operation (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

New section Hubs

Let’s author and evolve the section content here prior to publish it on the article page. The recurring content from other sections will be removed. --Pak1standby (talk) 09:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm beginning to be concerned with the length of this article. It has a lot of detail. When I look at all the sub sections under Features I worry. I support organizing based on Hubs rather than features, but I hope that this change can make things overall a bit more concise. What do you guys think? Captain Stack (talk) 09:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeap, the idea really is to organize and shorten the length of the article. I believe lot of things from features and other sections can be merged in this section categorically with the removal of duplications. --Pak1standby (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the idea at all: it lack consistency. In fact, I like the article to be organize by features (as it does now) as oppose to hubs because there's actually only 5 hubs and everything else are actually apps. For example, Maps, Bing, and Internet Explorer are not hubs. Furthermore, I am afraid that a lot of the information, the bulk of which has been written over ten months since Mobile World Congress 2010, would be lost in this transaction. Illegal Operation (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I have just added the hubs information into the already existing section and also bold all the hubs so nobody would miss it. Illegal Operation (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense. I have updated the games section. Do we really need that Lary Hryb's chat thing? Also, there are many outdated "will"s in the article which need to be addressed as the phone is already out in the market. --Pak1standby (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Definitely remove the "will"s. Those were written prior to the release of WP7, hence the use of future tense. Also, I have just removed the Lary Hryb thing. Illegal Operation (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Screenshot

There is a silly edit war between User:Illegal Operation and myself about the start page screenshot used in the article. The start page of WP7 is almost 4 tiles tall with the bottom tiles cut around were the text is, see this for example File:Samsung Focus.jpg. I'm sorry but I feel this user has ownership issues with this article --Chris Ssk _talk 00:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, this silly fight. So you think you are right and decide to change it. Illegal Operation (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I dont think I'm right, I know I'm right. I'm looking at my HD7 now and the text on the bottom tiles is cut like in the screenshot I uploaded --Chris Ssk _talk 00:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

So how do you know it's not slightly scroll up? I chopped the bottom off. Are you happy yet? Illegal Operation (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I still think the image I uploaded is better suited since its 480×800 with exact 3:5 ration, the same res as the actual phone res, and it would be nice to be able to contribute to the article without you reverting 4 edits and 2 image uploads of mine (all with edit summaries explaining the changes) but whatever. At least it looks correct now. --Chris Ssk _talk 00:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The actually size doesn't matter (aside from aspect ratio), but I like to keep the detail. Also, my image (after I chopped the bottom off) is 617×1,029, which is actually 3:5 ratio. Illegal Operation (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that that actual size doesn't matter as it doesn't undermine the ability of the copyright holder to profit from the work. But as the native resolution is 480x800 so anything above that doesn't add any detail since you are upscaling the picture (to then downscale it and add it to the article). BTW your image isnt exactly 3:5, its a few pixels off and thats because its not a display standard resolution that would give you a perfect 3:5 aspect ratio --Chris Ssk _talk 14:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Userbox

I made a userbox for Windows Phone 7 devices similar to the ones available for the iPhone, Nokia, Antroid etc... If anyone would like to add it to his/her userpage the code is {{User:Chris Ssk/userboxes/WP7|insert phone name here}} and it give you:

This user owns a(n) insert phone name here Windows Phone.

--Chris Ssk _talk 20:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

A big thanks. Here's the rest of the userboxes Chris made: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chris_Ssk/userboxes

Windows Phone 7 devices RAM

Apparently some Windows Phone 7 devices have 256MB RAM as oppose to the originally believe 512MB. As a result, I am asking that anyone else who have a Windows Phone 7 device to download the "device info" app and post how much RAM he/she has. Keep in mind that the actual RAM available is slightly above the reading (as the OS also uses some RAM). --Illegal Operation (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Kernel type

Windows Phone 7's kernel may had started as Windows CE 6.0 R3 but it isn't that at all now. It is Windows Embedded Compact 7. It started as Windows CE 6.0 R3 while Windows Embedded Compact 7 was almost nothing, but after changing the kernel to the team's liking and adding on everything else, certain parts made it into Windows Embedded Compact 7. So it would make sense to say that it reflects Windows Embedded Compact 7, not what it started with - Windows CE 6.0 R3. For more information about this. http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/04/windows-phone-7-based-on-a-hybrid-windows-ce-6-compact-7-kerne/

--Electricjolt (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Well here's an unofficial words from a Microsoft employee: "I am an Microsoftie that worked on WP7. WP7 is running on WinCE 7, however WinCE 7 was forked midway, thanks to a business re-org at Microsoft, so the CE group is now different from the WP7 group. They have 2 teams working separately on the two kernel forks now. Whatever the embedded group releases next will be the "official" WinCE 7. The WinCE 7 from the embedded group will be largely similar to the WP7 kernel, but expect the two kernels to diverge with time." Illegal Operation (talk) 18:03, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Chris Ssk on an image deleting spree

Apparently Chris Ssk is deleting a number of images even though they are already under a non-free license. This includes the following images: File:Dell Venue Pro.png File: HTC Surround.png File:HTC Trophy.png File:HTC Mozart.png File:LG Quantum.png File:Samsung Focus.png --Illegal Operation (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm just following Wikipedia and Commons policies regarding non-free images. Just because you add the Non-free use rationale template in your uploads doesnt automatically make it all right. All the images you uploaded under non-free use rationale fail Wikipedia's first non-free content criterion because they illustrate subjects for which free images can easily be found. The fact that you actually replaced free images on some articles shows this. If you want free images for the articles just walk into any store that sells the phones, take pictures of them and upload them to commons, or you can search flickr for images licensed under "Creative Commons-for commercial use, adaptation, modification or building upon" --Chris Ssk _talk 17:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Then I put it to your duty to replace all those non-free images I uploaded (before the images is deleted) with free images since they can easily be found. In the meanwhile, we will keep the current images. Do you agree? Illegal Operation (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Microsoft vague on Phone 7 sales

Has anyone considered discussing Microsoft's unwillingness to reveal specific sales figures for Windows Phone 7 devices? In his blog post The first rule of Windows Phone 7 sales is you do not talk about Windows Phone 7 sales, Network World's Jon Brodkin (a colleague) reports that Microsoft says it is "pleased with the response" to Phone 7 but refuses to provide specific numbers. This is in marked contrast to its eagerness to disclose specific sales of Windows 7 and Microsoft Office 2010 or downloads of the IE9 beta. OakleyCA (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)OakleyCA Dec. 17, 2010OakleyCA (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you read above? There's about three pages of discussion on it. Illegal Operation (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Microsoft has announced that it sold 1.5 millions Windows Phone 7 devices in six weeks. Would people get off this sale thing yet? Illegal Operation (talk) 15:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's still best to post marketshare figures rather than sales in the first 6 weeks, but w/e I'm really tired of discussing it.98.111.91.244 (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree, I say the best way is to NOT post anything. At a later time perhaps. Illegal Operation (talk) 01:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

If the consensus of the group is that we hold off on reporting on sales, so be it; I'll respect that. It may be better to revisit this issue after the OS has been in the market for longer, particularly if we can get third party reports on sales from industry research firms, such as for the fourth quarter of 2010 or the first quarter of 2011. However, to Illegal Operation's point, Microsoft only reported sales of 1.5 million units "to manufacturers" in the first six weeks. That is not the same as sales to consumers. It's legitimate to pursue this as a news story,especially, as I said, in contrast to Microsoft eagerly sharing specific sales figures on popular products. But as to whether it's worthy of a Wikipedia entry, I'll respectfully leave that to others more experienced in the Wikipedia community.OakleyCA (talk)Jan. 11, 2011. —Preceding undated comment added 05:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC).

Too much content in features section (and written like an advertisement)

Ok so the features section has just been getting worse. It has too many sections and some are really irrelevant. I think we can maybe migrate some content into an all encompassing User Interface section and do away with content regarding maps, search (or perhaps add a short section on Bing integration), text input, multimedia, contacts, email, and anything else that seems like it goes way too in depth or sounds like an ad. Overall, the features section needs to SLIM DOWN.Captain Stack (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I think at the present, it's perfectly fine; look at how detail the iPhone article is. The last thing we want is for this article to look like Android article. Illegal Operation (talk) 23:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Still I would like your input on how we should revise the article. Illegal Operation (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It's really a lot of little things everywhere, however, I think the biggest issue is slimming down and keeping this thing neutral and encyclopedic. Search and maps can be combined to a "Bing Integration" section. Keep in mind that the iPhone article isn't exactly a fair comparison because it's about a phone where this is about a platform. The contacts section could probably be removed or briefly mentioned in the "User Interface" section (where it talks about social networking integration). Games could be moved mostly under the Marketplace -> 3rd parth apps and games. There are a lot of little things, but again, it just feels like there are soooo many sub sections of features many just a sentence or two long making me wonder why they're there at all. Captain Stack (talk) 06:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I am still listening and be assure that you are NOT talking to a deaf ear. I would love to see a draft. Illegal Operation (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Imo, substituting the features section with a paragraph followed by the detailed/hefty table with the following columns prototype and legend (if applicable) can give us a way to shrink the volume information: Hub Name | Features | Description --Pak1standby (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Pak1standby, that's a bad idea; that's what the Android (operating system)#Features does and it's very ugly. Illegal Operation (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The Suppression Of Negative Information about Windows Phone 7

There has been a pattern on this page of the suppression of negative information regarding the Windows Phone 7 platform.

As a proposed solution, let's rise above the fray and work here, collaboratively, on a set of criteria, on which we can all agree, against which the presence of the information can be tested. Let's do this in a general sense, and speak only of a generic product. Perhaps this could be the beginning of a set of guidelines for company and product pages, where the motivations of active users are often in opposition to the goals of WikiPedia and the interests of readers. There have been no shortage of both pro and con "search engine optimization" firms, PR firms, insiders, and fans, editing this page. There's got to be a way to manage this kind of situation.

As a start, let's develop a set of broad categories for the criteria.

• Value to Readers

• Relevance to Page Topic

• Quality of Source — Preceding unsigned comment added by MbdSeattle (talk • contribs) 18:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Just keep in mind that if your goal is to throw in a bunch of negative data into the article, your not doing the article any justice, and you may destroy the balance of any NPOV aspect of the article. It would be helpful to point out what specifically is flawed in the article in terms of not having a NPOV. Putting in negative data into the article does not necessarily help or balance out the point-of-view. For example, if something sounds like an Ad as opposed to encyclopedic info, it may need to reworded, if everyone feels that it sounds like an Ad. Its wrong for us to focus on making the article have more of a negative POV here-and-there, only to somehow "balance" things out. The goal should be for the article to have no negative or positive points-of-view, it should be just relevant information to inform a reader. This is a good idea to start things off, though. --Interframe (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Throwing out all negative information does the article no justice.

Nobody's proposing "throwing in a bunch of negative data." My contributions have been motivated as such: I noticed the distinct absence of the one piece of data that everyone BUT this page is talking about: sales figures, so I added it. I saw five positive reviews on the page, but no negative reviews, so I added a very detailed and high quality negative review. Also, I made one step toward improving the Application section, which is virtually worthless in its present form. Adding a reference to an available streaming alternative on the phone would be a great continuation of that. Why doesn't someone add that? I'm willing to as well. After all, I own a Zune and I am a Zune Pass subscriber ... and I love it.MbdSeattle (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

What "very detailed and high quality negative review" did you add? I've been watching this page like a hawk and the only one I saw was the one that said "Windows Phone 7 is now failing both its intended customers and the company's historic customers". I don't see how you can consider this detailed or high quality. It explains nothing about the phone, why it has failed anyone, or what is wrong with it. Your sales figure is being talked about by the tech media. It's also one report of opening day sales, that cited an anonymous source. Just because it was parroted by every other tech site (like every story is) doesn't mean it's more valid than it was when just one site had reported it. Not "everyone". Wikipedia is not a magazine and speculation has no place here.Captain Stack (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Interframe speaks a lot of truth here. However, I'm not so sure about this criteria. This article has serious NPOV issues and I don't think it's because of unbalanced positive or negative content, but instead because of the nature of the content and the way its presented. A lot of it doesn't feel encyclopedic. so I think criteria should be more like this:

• Is this verifiable?
• Is this fact or opinion?
• Is this original research?
• Is this relevant
• Is this neutral? (and no I don't mean positive or negative, or not positive or not negtive. I mean neutral)

I think "value to readers" will only lead to pain. Who decides if it's valuable to them? Also, a lot of information that is of value to readers has no place in an encyclopedia. The iPhone page doesn't say how much it costs despite the value that has to the reader.Captain Stack (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Stack here, "value to readers" has no place here as a criteria. This is an encyclopedia, not a reader's guide. There's no need to rewrite the content rules for Wikipedia because one editor feels like one article isn't balanced. Dayewalker (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

What I mean by of value is a subset "relevant", so we can punt it as redundant for now. MbdSeattle (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Fact-based opinion is appropriate, otherwise we've got a LOT to remove. MbdSeattle (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I would still object to fact based opinion depending on the section (Reception would be a section where GOOD fact based opinion is alright). However, I think we should really stick to cold hard fact without opinion where we can. What content do you think doesn't adhere to this?Captain Stack (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

"Negative information" doesn't mean it's unacceptable. For Example:

Acceptable criticism: "There seems to be too much flipping, sliding, fold over animations, and lengthy times of loading when launch things like the Marketplace"

Unacceptable criticism: "Windows Phone 7 is now failing both its intended customers and the company's historic customers" Illegal Operation (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Both refer to good reviews, by reviewers who put a lot of time into analyzing the platform. If you feel strongly about your referenced review, fine. Respect too, then, that I feel strongly about the other one. Otherwise, both need to be deleted or we are at a perpetual impasse here. MbdSeattle (talk) 01:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you not understand the percieved difference between the two reviews that I and Illegal Operation are trying to point out? It doesn't matter if it's referenced or even if it's a good review. That sentence does not provide reasoned criticism. It claims that it thinks Windows Phone 7 is failing it's intended customers and historic ones, but doesn't say why or how. Just because some reviewer actually said that doesn't mean it belongs here. It has to be well reasoned and explained. A real reviewer could write a review and say "Windows Phone 7 is stupid and I hate it! Therefore it will fail!" I don't care if CNET wrote that or Bill Gates himself, it's an unreasonable assertion and has no place in Wikipedia. Even if you're looking for balance or neutrality, or you feel strongly about it. It doesn't matter, it has to give good reasons. Unless you can convince us that your referenced review also gives good reasons for its claim that Windows Phone 7 is failing its customers, we'll continue to disagree. If you really want to end this perpetual impass you'd try to convince us that that criticism actual is a well reasoned one instead of continuing to point out that it's referenced, because referenced doesn't mean it belongs here. Captain Stack (talk) 09:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm just curious. If an insider edits this page in the days leading up to an earnings report, is that a crime? This is purely hypothetical. Any appearance of applicability to actual edit events by actual editors is just a coincidence. MbdSeattle (talk) 04:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not a crime, but I or one of the other editors would most likely delete it because it's not properly sourced. Illegal Operation (talk) 22:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This article has been whitewashed by editors from Redmond, Washington, as well as fans who were called to arms by various Windows Phone 7 fan websites. Websites were asking readers to come here, edit positive things about the article, and also asked to harass those who opposed them. So it's no surprise that this has happened. Verifiable facts that are well covered by reliable sources should not be deleted, regardless of whether it is positive or negative towards Microsoft and its products.--Lester 05:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you for a moment perhaps thought that we did NOT live or work in Redmond? Did you for a moment perhaps thought that we are NOT sent here by some fanboy sites? Illegal Operation (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Lester, it's easy to make claims like that but at the end of the day, this article has gotten a lot of attention, and fanboy whitewash can't survive that. The article is subject to plenty of scrutiny and what's left is only what has been reasonably defended. All the editors here have given reasons why they think their content should be put up or why content should be taken down. This page is where we talk about it, so if you have a problem, please address the content instead of acusing editors of being from Redmond, or having been called to arms by a blog. It doesn't even matter if that's how they got here, they've supported their edits with reasons and that's what matters. And no not all verifiable information belongs on Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia and therefore only encyclopedic information belongs here, not every other thing that the media posts a story about.Captain Stack (talk) 23:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

From a reader: Came here to read up on the unexplained data transmission cases some users are experiencing with the phone. No mention of it in the article. One would think it an important thing to mention under the circumstances. (of it being a thing that costs money to run). I agree, this whole article looks like it could have been written by Microsoft. It is so squeaky clean. Doesn't look balanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.186.10.43 (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news source or a buyers guite. I dont think the issue is notable enough to be in the article. --Chris Ssk _talk 16:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I found the following text on CaptainStack's page: "Once everything calms down. I'll give the head nod once lester lets go of his hold on the article. Soon though because "we" out number him Four, five to one. --intelati(Call) 03:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)" This doesn't seem like good faith editing? IRWolfie- (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

IRWolfie, I understand your concern and I respect that you've brought it up. However, it is important to understand the context of these things and I think that the archived history of the article and talk page will bring that context to the forefront. It's true that I and user Intelati worked together largely against user Lester. However, Lester's edits and proposed changes really had no place on Wikipedia. If you're interested, it was largely about the section now titled "Features Removed from Windows Mobile" but was at the time titled "Missing Features". We discussed these issues endlessly and he really was the only one who wanted them. However, because he was so persistent, it took a bit of organization to get things to a point where we could actually work on the article rather than just argue with each other. I've worked with many editors who I don't agree with and usually discussion helps get things straightened out. However, in this case I feel justified in the action that was taken. I hope you can understand the position I was in and won't find any problems in my edits or in working with me on this page or any other. Captain Stack (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Captain. :) ps I won't comment unless needed.--intelati^talk 20:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

typo

Under the submission section, the sentence: "The submitted applications undergoe an approval process for verifications and validations to check if they qualify the applications standardization criteria set by Microsoft" has a typo (specifically, undergoe). 76.121.138.201 (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

handsets sale

There appear to be some confusion. First, the source was talking about the United States. Second, the phones were launched close to mid-November. Illegal Operation (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The reference gives the numbers as the US market share for 4Q 2010, not 2 months. Thats the way it should be in the article as per WP:OR and WP:V --Chris Ssk _talk 21:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Windows Phone 7 was launched on November 8, 2010 in the United States. This is not verifiable? Illegal Operation (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes but the reference gives the numbers as the US market share for 4Q 2010, not 2 months. combining 2 sources to reach a conclusion is original research --Chris Ssk _talk 12:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I also note that the sales are viewed as disappointing in the reliable source but this is clearly absent from the article. the title of the source is "Windows Phone 7 Off to a Slow Start in Fourth Quarter, as Android Smartphone Market-Share Lead Increases" IRWolfie- (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Now it said 4th quarter AND 2 months. I hope you are happy, IRWolfi Illegal Operation (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

No, Because it is still a synthesis not given by the source.IRWolfie- 16:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Request to add detail on forthcoming OS Update

{{edit semi-protected}} Please add the following paragraph to section 2.11 called "Software Updates." The text below should be added to the second paragraph in that section, just following the first (and only) sentence in that paragraph, which currently states, "Microsoft plans to regularly ship minor updates that add missing features, such as copy and paste, throughout the year, and major updates once a year." The text to add after this sentence is:

On February 4, 2011, Microsoft announced that the Windows Phone Developer Tools would be updated to support the forthcoming features to be added through the first Windows Phone 7 OS update. While announcing the updated developer tools, Microsoft told developers that most of their applications would not be required to be recompiled or resubmitted due to the upcoming update. These features include “copy and paste, improved app performance and other enhancements.” The application improvements are expected to be primarily focused on decreasing app load times. Microsoft has not publicly set a date for the update, saying only that it is expected “in the next few months.”

Thank you Smithbc8 (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Seems reasonable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

LG sale

Apparently somebody is claiming that Windows Phone 7 is selling poorly because of something said, yet I disagree. LG's mobile division is doing poorly as a whole and is losing money. Illegal Operation (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Its important to note that LG is not the only OEM selling Windows Phone 7 devices, if their WP7 devices are selling poorly, that may not have anything to do with the operating system, but maybe something to due with LG's brand and products. So LG can talk about how their Windows Phone 7 devices aren't living up to expectations, but at the end of the day, LG is talking about their own product, their own phones, not their operating system. Their objective is selling hardware with the LG name on it, as one of the key driving factors of any phone, and if they aren't selling much, that is the company's own problem, not the problem of an operating system platform. --Interframe (talk) 02:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

And he can look at this chart too: http://wmpoweruser.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/samsungleading.jpg While I do understand this is a WP7 fansite, that Samsung and HTC makeup almost 90% of the devices does say something about LG's products Illegal Operation (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

no one, other than you is claiming anything. You are claiming that since LG's WP7 arent selling well and LG's mobile division is doing poorly, therefore LG's WP7 arent selling well because LG's mobile division is doing poorly. This is original research and against wikipedia's policies. The article says, backed by reliable sources, that 1.5 mil WP7 devices were shipped, but unknown how many were sold. and that LG expected to sell more WP7 devices. Nothing more nothing less. All these are very relevant to the article. --Chris Ssk _talk 07:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Well. here's your original research: http://pocketnow.com/tech-news/lg-posts-record-losses-mobile-division-hemorrhaging Illegal Operation (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's the exact quote "From an industry perspective we had a high expectation, but from a consumer point of view the visibility is less than we expected". I have no idea what this even mean since the rest of the conversation is missing and apparently new sources "decided" this to mean that Windows Phone 7 is not doing very well. Does it mean that carriers are going all out advertising Samsung phones so LG get no limelight? Also, I want to note that the reason the 1.5 millions phones "shipped" wasn't added to the article until now was that it would run into this disagreement. Illegal Operation (talk) 16:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said, its not up to us to explain why LG's WP7 devices are not selling as well as they wanted (personally I think its because they have nothing special to offer, HTC offers the best camera, the biggest screen, the best sound, Samsung offers the best display) but the fact that they are not selling as well as LG wanted should be mentioned. I don't mind if it says 1.5 millions phones "shipped" or "sold" to mobile operators and retailers. --Chris Ssk _talk 16:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Done like you've said. Just my own opinion, but LG phones are pretty bland. Illegal Operation (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't bother with facts. Just let the Win Phone 7 ala Kin 2 fail in the marketplace and in about a year come back and put in an epitaph about this phone OS and Steve Balmer as by then nobody will pay attention to this page. 24.56.37.131 (talk) 07:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the discussion! For the moment, I've added LG's quote in full, as this was the only piece of information released by any of the manufacturers I could find. Once Samsung, LG, .. or AT&A, T-Mobile, ... release their official numbers, this needs of course be updated. --

Enemenemu (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Spelling

This article has restricted access, therefore I cannot edit a misspelling. Can someone plesae fix the word "Microsoft" in the second paragraph under the heading "Marketplace" > "Music and Videos". Thank you!

 Done. Fixed! Thanks for pointing that out. I think this page may have quieted down enough to start removing some of that protection. What does everyone else think? I have no idea how to get protection removed so if it does happen, someone else will have to do it. Captain Stack (talk) 08:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Announced Features

I'm not sure if that section is really necessary. Pretty much every feature mentioned in this section is already mentioned in the respective specific sections (HTML 5 and hardware acceleration is mentioned under web browsing, Twitter mentioned under Contacts, and Skydrive integration is mentioned under Office. I've long said that I think this article is bloated enough so I vote we axe this section. Captain Stack (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You forgot multitasking, lol. Illegal Operation (talk) 22:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess there's no specific section for that, though it does say under "Features Removed from Windows Mobile" that multitasking is coming. Captain Stack (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The question is whether we should clump all the coming up features into a separate sections or spread it throughout the current sections. Illegal Operation (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Greek kbd

No Greek or other virtual kbd layouts. Sad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.128.132.79 (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Article should explain current status

Per WP:BRD, I've reverted the following bold edit.[1] The cited reason for the deletion was "Wikipedia doesn't document every announcement/update/problem with a platform." 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. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to strongly disagree. Wikipedia doesn't have all information that "readers will want to know". For instance, the iPhone page doesn't include how much the iPhone costs. Valuable information? Yes. Something readers may want to know? Yes. Does it belong in Wikipedia? No. The reason is that it's not encyclopedic information. We can't document information like this. If you put in a problem with one update, you have to put in "On this date, Microsoft released an update to Windows Phone 7 and everything went exactly according to plan". Wikipedia isn't a magazine or other source of tech news. Thank you for starting a section on the Talk page though. Captain Stack (talk) 00:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I have agree with Captain Stack. Wikipedia is not a news site. Illegal Operation (talk) 03:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Just because it's not a news site doesn't mean news should be excluded. In fact, we have entire articles devoted to news. In any case, encyclopedia articles are supposed to be informative and educational. It's reasonable to assume that the reader would want to know the current status of the OS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Some news or current status items are appropriate to include in an article, but only if it can be presented such that the information will continue to be relevant in the future and won't require the article to be frequently updated. All too often, the original editor moves on and someone else has to clean up the mess a few months later. Maghnus (talk) 09:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of "sale information"

The following paragraph should be remove. It saids absolutely nothing except about the product except "Yes, it's selling well; no, it's not selling well" nonsense.

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: "The customers are very satisfied with the experience. 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. “We feel fairly confident in our Windows Phone portfolio,” he said. Illegal Operation (talk) 04:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It's reactions to the launch and so is important. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm kind of conflicted by this. It seems sort of important. I wish there was more information about marketshare and such. Then there could be a "Sales and market adoption" section or something. I'm sure eventually we'll be able to have a proper section like that, but for now, if we're going to have this kind of information, launch is pretty much the only logical place to put it. I'm not going to condem or condone this content. Captain Stack (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

WP7's market penetration should be included. But that's not to say that that paragraph can't be written better. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Article needs updating for NPOV

I do agree that balance is needed. An even balance. Quilnux (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree that there has not been very much negative feedback, in general, for WP7. From a practical point of view, everyone that I know, that I show my WP7 to, is very impressed. several even want to switch from Android and iPhone for WP7. Even the most dedicated Apple fans that I know have been impressed with WP7, although they would never depart from Apple. The only negative information I've been able to really find about WP7 is the delay in the recent update. When you take that away everything else has been positive. But I look at it from a consumer/practical point of view, not the media's point of view. Rarely does the media align to the real oppinion. I trust the oppinion of friends and family over that of media. Nonetheless, people will disagree with me on this and thats fine. We are all entitled to our oppinion. Quilnux (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The "Reception" section was probably written by Microsoft's marketing department, as it links only to wildly positive reviews. There has been some very negative reception and a number of more neutral reviews that should probably be added. LinuxDeveloper (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the NPOV input, "LinuxDeveloepr". Really. The receiption _has_ been exceptionally positive, even before release.

12.107.188.5 (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I just opened a new NPOV regarding this page, per CaptainStack and others' persistent purging of negative information regarding the Windows Phone 7 platform, and its sales results.

It also seems LG so far hasn't been impressed with the demand for Phone 7 for example. - http://www.worldtech24.com/windows/lg-disappointed-windows-phone-7-sales 24.56.37.131 (talk) 07:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

SOMEONE: Please, unlock the article, it is written like an adverstisement, there are no hardware specifications, please let the community modify this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.13.40.131 (talk) 11:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.99.114 (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

WP7 has received an overwhelming number of positive reviews. AFAIK, the only negative review by a major publication is Infoworld's. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't bother. 24.56.37.131 is a troll: "Don't bother with facts. Just let the Win Phone 7 ala Kin 2 fail in the marketplace and in about a year come back and put in an epitaph about this phone OS and Steve Balmer as by then nobody will pay attention to this page. 24.56.37.131" Illegal Operation (talk) 04:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Seriously people, this article reads just like a sales brochure. It is simply not balanced. Nothing can be as good as this article would have you believe. Be impartial, be balanced. There are many aspects to WP7 which have a negative impact, and problems which those reading should be informed about in a proper article. Looking through the comments in this discussion it is clear that this is not a personal feeling but rather smacking of the obvious. I have nothing for or against WP7 but I do care about Wikipedia being edited professionally. This fails in that respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.231.26.42 (talk) 10:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Code name "NoDo" and "Mango"

Considering that Joe Belfiore confirmed here (http://channel9.msdn.com/Shows/Counting-Down-to-Mix/Countdown-to-MIX11-Joe-Belfiore-Talks-Phone) that the updates are indeed code name "NoDo" and "Mango", should we be using those names in the Wikipedia article? Illegal Operation (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes.-Lester 13:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Cut, Copy & Paste?

Shouldn't that be "copy and paste" only? As far as I'm aware, the NoDo update does not include the ability to CUT. --Cumbiagermen (talk) 05:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

After copy, press backspace. Illegal Operation (talk) 05:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Cumbiagermen is correct. Manually deleting the text after copying it is not the same as a 'Cut' function.--Lester 10:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I would say it has a comprable "alternate feature" or a different way of doing the same thing. Probably not worth nit picking on the difference. Captain Stack (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Why? I see no reason to have something so small that isn't factually correct when we have the reference and can correct it (I've changed it). IRWolfie- (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Silverlight 4 is incorrect

A while ago I changed a part of the text from silverlight 4 to "a WP7 specific version of Silverlight", as it is clearly incorrect, see this article at Microsoft Developer Network (MSDN). Somehow this got reverted though, so I'm asking anyone with a user account to edit this back (after verifying ofcourse). Also don't be fooled by the current reference. The Silverlight 4 tools are needed as with this version some features we're introduced that make it way easier to develop (besides enabling some backported features in WP7-Silverlight). --213.154.239.254 (talk) 08:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You can make the edit. The page is no longer protected. Illegal Operation (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Partnership with Nokia

Hey, just wanted to get going on the partnership with Nokia. I think that it naturally fits under "History". Everyone thinks that this is worthy of its own section right? Captain Stack (talk) 10:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be a section 1.4 in History --Chris Ssk _talk 15:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It should be under History > Launch Illegal Operation (talk)

I'm with Chris on this one. Needs to be section 1.4 under History. It's way past launch and it had its own event and everything. Captain Stack (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

What should we name the section? Illegal Operation (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

"Partnership with Nokia" should do just fine. Here's the open letter from Nokia and Microsoft on the matter:

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2011/feb11/02-11partnership.mspx

and if you want to watch the keynote for more details (I watched it but can't write anything just now) it's here:

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/presskits/windowsphone/

Should be able to make a good detailed section with these sources. I'll help when I get the time. Captain Stack (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok I added the section. I think it's pretty solid but please read/edit/improve it.Captain Stack (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Umm, I don't think Windows Phone 7 was specifically ever mentioned during the keynote for this partnership, just 'Windows Phone' which could mean any future version, not neccessarily 'Windows Phone 7'. Here's the article that I picked it up from: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/no-windows-phone-7-for-nokia-no-really-/11439 Antonyh3 (talk) 10:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

If you read that section of the wiki, you'll notice it never says Windows Phone 7 either. I suppose the issue could be that it's in the Windows Phone 7 article, but until there is a greater "Windows Phone" article that is version androgenous I think it's in the best place it can be. Captain Stack (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Bloomberg Estimate in Partnership with Nokia Section

There's been a bit of controversy about the "Partnership With Nokia" section as well as the Bloomberg quote within it. The two controversies are whether or not the section should exist at all, and if it should, whether or not Bloomberg's estimate of the money exchange between companies should be included. It is my stance that since Microsoft and Nokia announced the deal and it's a huge deal to both companies, the section should exist. However, Bloomberg's estimate is speculation. The cited article claims that its source is "two people with knowledge of the terms." To me, this is not acceptable citation and therefore doesn't belong in the article. Please post how you feel here to help prevent an edit war. Captain Stack (talk) 23:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

AFAICS the source makes a unambiguiously direct claim "Microsoft will pay Nokia more than $1 billion to promote and develop Windows-based handsets as part of their smartphone software agreement, according to two people with knowledge of the terms." The fact that the two people are unnamed doesn't make it "speculative reporting". Bloomberg is a reliable source and since the story was published on March 7th it has been repeated all over the web (e.g. this piece in InfoWorld) without denial or push-back from Microsoft or Nokia. I think the claim should be mentioned in the Windows Phone 7 article somehow. I've re-cast the sentence to make it clear that this is Bloomberg's claim. - Pointillist (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem with that InfoWorld article is that IT cite Bloomberg. This is akin to the sales estimate on the first day which cited an anonomyous source, which was then parroted by every tech news cite on the internet. So while the claim "Windows Phone 7 sold 40,000 handsets on the first day" could have like 6 citations, it all traced back to one annonomyous source. The tech world echo chamber gives certain claims more credibility than they deserve. I think that unless it's reported by Microsoft and/or Nokia, then it is at least partially speculative. Your edit to the claim has partially addressed this. I'd still like to see what other editors think. Captain Stack (talk) 07:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It would be speculative if the report was based on conjecture or guesses rather than knowledge, e.g. "people close to the deal estimated Microsoft could pay over $1 billion" would be speculation. In this case the claim is expressed in rock solid terms: will pay, say people with knowledge of the terms. Of course, the claim might be wrong—any reliable source can be wrong—but I don't think it can be entirely excluded from the article. Would you like to improve on the sentence some more? I'll unwatch the article for a week to avoid "owning" the outcome. - Pointillist (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Bloomberg is a reliable source and the info should be in the article. I had issues with cited info being removed from this article in the past and I think theres a misunderstanding of whats counts as a reliable source. It seems some editors want Microsoft to come out with a statement before accepting it as fact, but as per WP:RS, articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources. Third-party sources and are generally preferred in Wikipedia because they have no obvious incentive to distort the truth or "spin" the facts and are therefore considered to have neutral point of view. --Chris Ssk _talk 16:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

USSD support

I did some searching and discovered that Windows Phone 7 supports USSD 1, but does not allow use of a keypad 23. To say that "USSD messages" are unsupported is slightly inaccurate. --Btx40 (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Timeline in History section

Does anyone else think this timeline is sort of stupid and ought to be removed? It's not a very good "timeline" because the ticks on the timeline do not uniformly correspond to time (1 cm is one month is some spots and many more months in others). It's also taking up a lot of space and occasionally makes the layout of the page weird. I really just don't think it gives particularly interesting information. Also, the information will become very dated unless the graphic is continually updated, but then it will get very long and awkward to put in the page. I nominate this image for deletion, what do you guys think? Captain Stack (talk) 08:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it sums up a few paragraphs very well. Also, I am in contact with the author Modamoda who pledge to continually update it. Illegal Operation (talk) 21:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Updating is fine, but the graphic will just get longer and longer until it's too hard to fit into the section. Look at the History section right now. It has a huge spot of white space with no text. It looks horrible. I'd be alright with all that if I thought the content was useful. Captain Stack (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I do agree with that the timeline may become ridiculously long, but we can deal with that when it happens. Also, I am guessing that you are using a monitor with a much higher resolution screen than I am, because I do not see any blank space. Illegal Operation (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

1280x800, which I think the problem may have actually been not enough horizontal pixles so it did a weird stacking thing. Probably depends on screen size, resolution, and width of the window you're using. Issue seems gone now, so I'll leave the graphic up for now. If other people think it should be taken down though, I'll support them. Captain Stack (talk) 01:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Remove Absent features section

The section contains random information that claims to be "missing", yet I don't understand how this is valid. Since it list "missing" features, unlimited things that Windows Phone 7 is not can be listed. Plenty of information listed isn't even in the iOS yet I don't see the iOS article. Illegal Operation (talk) 03:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

proposed solution

Remove - the article is about what Windows Phone 7 is not what Windows Phone 7 isn't. There's an unlimited things that Windows Phone 7 isn't. Windows Phone 7 isn't a toaster, for example. Illegal Operation (talk)

I agree with this solution philosophically and if we got the support, I'd be completely down with it. However, I'm not sure all the editors here are ready to part with that section. I have a proposed solution of my own. Captain Stack (talk) 04:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge with Reception section - This is not an article about what Windows Phone 7 ISN'T. However, we do have portions about the reaction from the media and the public. Features that have gotten widespread attention from the media as omissions in Windows Phone 7 can be put into the reception section as long as the source is credible, objective, and representative of the media overall. Many features in the "Absent Features" section I believe would not hold up to this standard.Captain Stack (talk) 04:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I just went through many reviews and the most common complain seem to be lack of multitasking, lack of universal search, and lack of universal inbox. That can be added to the Reception section and the whole Absent features section can be eliminated. Illegal Operation (talk) 05:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget custom ringtones, I think that one is important.Captain Stack (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

As a Samsung Focus user, I believe that it's the most important features missing, but most of the major sites such as Engadget never mention it, so I am excluding it. Remember, I am basing it on reviews from major blog site like Engadget not what I feel is missing from personal experience. Illegal Operation (talk) 22:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I am currently going through reviews with a fine tooth comb seeing what some of the major reviews note is "missing" Illegal Operation (talk)

According to Maximum Tech magazine, the most glaring are lack of CDMA, customization, external memory, apps and fully implemented landscape mode. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the NoDo update added CDMA support and the HTC Arrice is on Sprint's network so I think that one doesn't count. Also, what do they mean by "customization". I think it needs to be a bit more specific to get in the Wiki. Also, the app marketplace is pretty good and growing quickly. Some might still criticize it but I wonder, how old is this article?Captain Stack (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

And that's the problem. At some point, there need to be a line drawn on what should be consider "missing". If most reviews complain about it, then it is noteworthy. iPhone doesn't have any of those features, for instance, and I don't see too many complaining about it. Illegal Operation (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge with reception section is fine. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

One other note on the merge. I feel like the Reception section should be lower down in the article. In most video game, movie, and other articles, the reception section is towareds the bottom, if not the very bottom. That's where the section originally as and it got moved to "History". To me this makes little sense. Since we're merging and moving content, I think this is a good time to move it back to the bottom. What does everyone else think?Captain Stack (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I just moved it to the bottom. Illegal Operation (talk) 23:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

New Zealand is not in Europe; Mexico/Spain not in South America

The "Release History" section lists Mexico and Spain as part of South America. It also lists New Zealand as part of Europe. Geography fail. While we're at it, "PAL" is not a continent, and "Middle East" is not a country! (What Middle East countries has it actually launched in?) And how do PAL/NTSC broadcast television regions pertain to Windows Phone 7, anyway? If the table uses the old PAL region terminology, then many of the other countries in the table should also be under PAL. Matthew81.159.146.232 (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Big revision to the "Reception" section

Hey guys. As long as its existed, I've had problems with the Reception section. I've always thought that it seems to be more about the fact that this reviewer liked WP7 or that another didn't rather than about reveiwers specific praise and criticism of the OS. I've whipped up a draft of what I consider to be an improvement over the Reception section. It's more about content and less about praise/criticism. I haven't added citations yet so it will be a while before this is ready for prime time, but I'd like to see what you guys think before I put much more work into it. Anyways, let me know. Captain Stack (talk) 02:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The reception section is a very controversial ground and I man not sure how other editors would take it. That said, the revise section does sound much more soothing and I definitely see it as an improvement. Illegal Operation (talk) 05:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you know specifically what Mango will bring to Windows Phone 7 (UI and features only, don't care about dev tools, bug fixes, and performance optimizations)? I know that third party multitasking is one of them, but if I am correct, unified search and universal inbox have not been announced yet. Is this correct? Captain Stack (talk) 06:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It was leaked that there will be unified inbox. Illegal Operation (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Well we cannot hold a double standard for features that we like, so until it's confirmed by Microsoft, we cannot say that Mango will add it.Captain Stack (talk) 02:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly why I am waiting until May 24th to see what's up. Illegal Operation (talk) 02:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Reception Draft

Moved to article.

Mango update

Following are the details of mango update I got from http://gadgetbox.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/05/24/6707681-whats-new-in-mango-the-next-version-of-windows-phone. I'm not sure how much of it needs to go into the main article.

Communications

Among Mango's communications-oriented features are some enhancements to the way you'll get updates and maneuver through texts, chats, emails, IMs, and other messages:

•Threads. Switch between text, Facebook chat and Windows Live Messenger within the same conversation.
•Groups. Group contacts into personalized Live Tiles to see the latest status updates right from the Start Screen and quickly send a text, email or IM to the whole group.
•Deeper social network integration. Twitter and LinkedIn feeds are now integrated into contact cards, and “Mango” includes built-in Facebook check-ins and new face detection software that makes it easier to quickly tag photos and post to the Web.
•Linked inbox. See multiple email accounts in one linked inbox. Conversations are organized to make it easy to stay on top of the latest mail.
•Hands-free messaging. Built-in voice-to-text and text-to-voice support enables hands-free texting or chatting.

Apps

With Mango, Microsoft is attempting to integrate apps "directly into the core experience of the phone." In plain terms, this means that app notifications will get more prominent spots on the start screen and be included in search results— oh and they'll get multitasking support:

•App Connect. By connecting apps to search results and deepening their integration with Windows Phone Hubs, including Music and Video and Pictures, “Mango” allows apps to be surfaced when and where they make sense.
•Improved Live Tiles. Get real-time information from apps without having to open them. Live Tiles can be more dynamic and hold more information.
•Multitasking. Quickly switch between apps in use and allow apps to run in the background, helping to preserve battery life and performance.

advertisement

Internet

Microsoft says that it is trying to take the Internet "beyond the browser," and apparently what it means is that it will give Windows Phone a speed update with Internet Explorer 9 and better integrate apps and device features with the browser:

•Internet Explorer 9. A browser based on the powerful Internet Explorer 9 and including support for HTML5 and full hardware acceleration.
•Local Scout. Provides hyperlocal search results and recommends nearby restaurants, shopping and activities in an easy-to-use guide.
•Bing on Windows Phone. More ways to search the Web, including Bing Vision, Music Search and Voice so it’s easy to discover and decide.
•Quick Cards. When searching for a product, movie, event or place, see a quick summary of relevant information, including related apps

-Abhishikt 01:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I am currently awaiting the unlocked Mango emulator to work with. Currently, I do not have sufficient knowledge about Windows Phone 7.5 (Mango) to add to the Wikipedia article. Illegal Operation (talk) 02:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

A lot of the information has now been added. Illegal Operation (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)