Talk:Windows Phone/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

External Links

I don't think we need any of those external links (apart from the Window Phone homepage). The others are just reviews which the reader can find numerous of by performing a quick internet search. Casey boy (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent Edits

I have noted some recent edits to this page which involve changing the contents to mirror that of Windows Mobile#Windows Mobile 7 and back to a redirect. Rather than revert and potentially spark an edit war, can we please reach some kind of a consensus on whether this page should be a redirect or a proper article with the same content as the page to which it would otherwise redirect to?

Given this is a brand new product with no backwards compatibility it should probably be a separate article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The note about the flash support isnt exactly true. http://www.informationweek.com/news/windows/microsoft_news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=224000112&cid=RSSfeed_IWK_News says flash support is in progress. MrNick01 (talk) 00:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Windows CE based...

While it may be likely I could not learn from the presentation it's really using a CE core... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.243.201 (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Microsoft has not confirmed which version of Windows CE is running on Windows Phone 7, if any. They are not talking about it. ZDnet's Mary Jo Foley asked a Microsoft spokesperson and received the following response:

“ [Spokesperson] was not allowed to talk about whether Windows CE is still at its core, or which version of CE it was. ” — ZDNet

I removed a contribution that cited an article written in January. A rumor/leak is not confirmation for a product's features, especially if it was reported before the official announcement was already made. If you want to insert a Windows CE mention, make sure you properly cite the article, preferably with a source that includes official Microsoft confirmation, and was reported after 15 February. --Cumbiagermen (talk) 09:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added that WP7S runs Windows CE 6 to the infobox with a reputable source. Casey boy (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if that's enough. Engadget doesn't exactly go into great detail as to how they found out it was WinCE 6.0; they might have just assumed it was that based on the rumors, etc. happening before MWC. However, being as this post was done after Mix '10 (when they might have learned some new information), I'll give it the benefit of the doubt for now. But I think eventually we'll have to cite a direct Microsoft source, or official Microsoft confirmation. --Cumbiagermen (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Changing the name from "Windows Phone 7 Series" to just "Windows Phone 7"

Microsoft confimred on the official Twitter account of Windows Phone that they will change the name to just "Windows Phone 7". Please change the name of the entire article to "Windows Phone 7". I'll try to go around WIkipedia changing everything to just "Windows Phone 7" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Interframe (talk • contribs) 19:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Just make sure you just don't copy it to your text editor and do Replace All for the 'Windows Phone 7 Series' phrase. Some links are hardwired to the old phrase. I just had to correct a link that had 'series' removed, and it didn't work anymore. --Cumbiagermen (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

Windows Phone 7 Series → Windows Phone 7 — Microsoft has dropped "Series" from the title, so the OS is now officially "Windows Phone 7". .:Alex:. 19:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section

The criticism section of the article is just a list of missing features, policies, Why are these in a criticism section? A criticism section should have actual criticism from notable sources, not things wikipedia editors don't like, thats against wikipedia policies. --Chris Ssk _talk 08:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I've scrubbed it since it's simply a list of not available features not actual criticism. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I restored it again. You can't delete a whole section just because you didn't like it. The reason stated, that it is an "unreliable source" is not valid.--Lester 20:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you actually understand what "criticism" means? Because that section is *not* criticism. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The platform is being widely criticised in the media for, yes, lack of some basic feature (such as copy and paste), and policies, such as Microsoft's new app approval process. Maybe the points need to be reworded, I'm not sure. The media criticism is pretty widespread, so it would be easy to find other citations. However, it shouldn't just be completely deleted, as you'll just turn the article into a fanboy page.--Lester 20:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

since you are finding this difficult to grasp, let me give you a simple example:

• It does not support copy & paste explains the lack of a feature - this is not Criticism

• It does not support copy & paste, PC world author Joe Blow noted that the lack of this feature meant that the platform did not provide the same level of basic functionality as it's competitors. This is criticism

Do you need a easier example? Maybe a picture? --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it helps your point to throw personal insults. I'm open to suggestion on how it can be improved. I notice the Android article calls it "Restrictions and Issues". Would that be better?--Lester 21:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it helps your point to throw personal insults - as you'll just turn the article into a fanboy page. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Being more serious, best to intergrate these things into the prose into the relevent sections. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

How can you truthfully critize something that hasnt been release yet and is still in development? Yes at events they have "promo" models, but they are still far from a finished product. Its like rating a movie soley from the previews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.65.10 (talk) 21:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Copy/Paste is apparently slated for future updates 24.223.135.30 (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Announced devices

There should be mention of devices announced by Dell, HTC, and others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.65.122 (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Would someone in the know please add this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainStack (talk • contribs) 18:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

There are not any announced devices yet, just a few leaked names, pics etc --Chris Ssk _talk 14:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Content restrictions

Someone keeps blanking the 'Content restrictions' section. Applications on Windows Phone 7 will be banned from showing nudity or violence. This is important information, whether you agree or disagree with Microsoft's policy. The person blanking it says in the edit summary that it was deleted because it is also mentioned in another article about the Microsoft Marketplace. However, the restrictions are specific to Windows Phone 7, and don't apply to Microsoft's other phone platforms. It should be included in this article, and the person blanking it should refrain.--Lester 13:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone can still view "nudity and violence" through Windows Phone 7`s web browser. Microsoft has not banned that kind of content from the operating system itself. Its not like their banning people from syncing pictures/videos that contain "restricted content" from their PCs to their phones, people can still do that. This kind of content is only blocked from anything coming out of the Windows Phone Marketplace app store. Therefore, this has more to do with the Windows Phone Marketplace than Windows Phone 7 as an operating system, because the restrictions are not actually built into the OS. --Interframe 11 June 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 20:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC).

You said: "This kind of content is only blocked from anything coming out of the Windows Phone Marketplace app store." That's not true. The marketplace hosts Classic Windows Phone apps that don't have these restrictions. It only applies to Windows Phone 7 apps. And regardless of that, mention of these restrictions should still be in this article anyway, as it is an important part of what defines this platform. It's one of those features that will polarize the public... you either love it or hate it. But Microsoft must have decided that this is the way to go.--Lester 20:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The Apple iPhone article, which has similar app content restrictions to Windows Phone 7, doesn't have a section for app content restrictions, because it has more to do with Apple's App Store than the iPhone's OS. Realistically, I think we should put a small mention under the "Application development" section about the application content restrictions. It doesn't really deserve an entire sub-section of its own, because its not built into the OS. But, there should be a small mention for it under "Application development" anyways. It also doesn't make sense that its under the "Features" section, its not a feature of the OS and its not built into the OS either.--Interframe —Preceding undated comment added 21:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC).

Agree with Interframe on this. The restrictions aren't a part of the OS itself; they're a characteristic of an entirely different, though related, piece of software. As much, the bulk of it belongs on the Marketplace article (which incidentally, only has 7 apps, 6.x apps are in Windows Marketplace for Mobile), with a sentence or two in this article. C628 (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

diagree, it makes it clear it's related to apps and there are reliable sources to support the statements. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but the apps aren't actually a native part of the OS, so I don't think it makes sense to treat them as such. It's comparable to discussing SimCity or some other computer game in the Windows 7 article, IMO. C628 (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Read the article it's not simply about the hardware and OS, it's also about the context, the relationship to other products by Microsoft etc. The ipad article has a similar section (that breaks out into a separate article because of the length, we don't enough material to justify a breakout). --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The difference between the app stuff and the rest is that the other parts, the context and relationship to other Microsoft products (namely Kin) is that those are a characteristic of the OS itself, and can't be changed (except for application development, which should also get stuck in the Marketplace article). Therefore, it makes sense for them to be in this article, whereas for the app content, that's not part of the native software, so it fits better in the article on the store itself, with a brief mention here. C628 (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand that we have the reliable sources to support the statements, but these sources and statements belong in the Windows Phone Marketplace article. Also, the "content restrictions" are not a feature, so it doesn't even make sense to have a sub-topic under there. I dont see a problem with what I suggested before, which was to put a small mention of the content restrictions under the "Application development" section, which makes more sense anyways. And if the reader wants to learn more about the apps, the Windows Phone Marketplace article is linked right in the "Application developement" sub-topic.--Interframe —Preceding undated comment added 15:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC).

We went through all this before. Interframe. Stop deleting the content restrictions information. The restrictions that are coming to Windows Phone 7 have not been applied to any previous Microsoft OS. It's a combination of factors that allow for such restrictions, as Microsoft is preventing Windows Phone 7 users from circumventing those restrictions. It's a polarizing subject, in that people either love or hate the restrictions. But it should not be deleted from this article, as it is specific to Windows Phone 7.--Lester 22:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

No, we never even came to a conclusion on this. Microsoft IS NOT restricting people from syncing their own content (be it photos, videos, whatever) to their phone. These content restrictions are the rules developers must follow for the Windows Phone Marketplace. Microsoft has done the exact same thing for Windows Mobile, with the Windows Marketplace for Mobile and I have the sources directly from Microsoft to back this up. The content restrictions DO NOT apply to the operating system, they apply to the Windows Phone Marketplace. But I decided to give readers of this article some context by still giving them info about the content restriction laws that apply to the Windows Phone Marketplace, not Windows Phone 7 directly. And its also worth mentioning that the Windows Phone Marketplace article has all the sources and exact same words as the old "content restrictions" section in this article, so if you or anybody worked to find those sources and write all of that, it didn't go to waste as it still exists in the Windows Phone Marketplace article.--Interframe —Preceding undated comment added 22:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC).

The content restrictions apply specifically to Windows Phone 7 because they cannot be circumvented. With older versions of Windows Phone, most apps did not come from the app store. With Windows Phone 7, all apps on the platform must adhere to Microsoft's content restrictions. That makes it relevant to this platform.--Lester 23:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is relevant to Windows Phone 7, thats why I didn't completely delete this section. But it deals with applications coming from the Windows Phone Marketplace. Everything that was written before, under the content restrictions section, including the sources, is included in WinPho Marketplace article, where it is more appropriate. I still give the reader context by informing them about the content restriction laws of the Marketplace (which is the most important thing), and it links to that article where they can read more about it if they choose to. I don't understand what is so wrong about this, nothing disappeared, it was just moved around to a more appropriate article, and there is still a notable mention of the content restrictions of Windows Phone Marketplace applications included in the Windows Phone 7 article.--Interframe —Preceding undated comment added 23:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC).

What you wrote in the article is not even correct. QUOTE: "Similarly to what Microsoft did with Windows Marketplace for Mobile on Windows Mobile 6.x[32], Microsoft will be enforcing content restrictions on Windows Phone 7" You are looking at the WinMo app store and you are then comparing it to the WP7 app store and coming to your own conclusion that WinMo restrictions are the same as WP7 restrictions. That's WP:SYNTHESIS and it's incorrect. Could you find an independent (non-Microsoft) article that states that WP7 is no more restricted than WinMo? There were hundreds of articles in tech publications that covered the WP7 restrictions. Microsoft didn't and couldn't enforce restrictions on WinMo, as WinMo allowed users to install whatever they wanted. WP7 is restricted, and we should inform the readers of this article how and why.--Lester 00:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I was not claiming that Windows Mobile was restricted, I was claiming that Microsoft has the same set of rules for Windows Marketplace for Mobile on Windows Mobile 6.x. I'm sorry that it sounded as if i was talking about Windows Mobile, but I was specifically talking about Windows Marketplace for Mobile. You also say Windows Phone 7 is restricted. Thats not entirely true. Its the applications that come from the Windows Phone Marketplace, and again I did not completely delete this section, I reorganized it and moved parts of it to a more appropriate article. These content restrictions are a guideline for developers to follow when creating applications and submitting them to Microsoft through the Marketplace. As I have tried to express many times before, a user can still sync any kind of content they want to their phone and they can visit any website they want, the application content is controlled by the Windows Phone Marketplace policy and laws which have been in place when Microsoft developed Windows Marketplace for Mobile. This isn't anything new for Microsoft, and yes, I understand that Windows Mobile apps didn't have these restrictions, but like Windows Mobile, in WP7 the user can put whatever content the want on their phone or view any website, the application restrictions are laws and policies of the Windows Phone Marketplace, not Windows phone 7, but they are related which is why I didn't delete this section but rather move things around.--Interframe

Interframe, there are 13 million articles on the web (Google search) that have headlines like "No porn apps on Windows Phone 7". Nobody cared about store rules in the past, as they could be circumvented. The mechanics of how the porn-free app platform was achieved doesn't matter. The end result is that while porn apps are popular on Windows Mobile, Microsoft stops you from putting porn apps on Windows Phone 7. 13 million articles stating that you can't get porn apps for Windows Phone 7, but you don't think it's relevant to the article.--Lester 02:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Why do you keep assuming that I'm ignoring all of this. I`m not, and you aren't even trying to explain what is so wrong with what I did. Microsoft stops porn apps because of Windows Phone Marketplace policies, your free to look at porn in the web browser, in fact when you think about it, the web browser is the one app that allows you to break all the rules regarding content restrictions. However, to be fair, in the article, it is still acknowledged that there are content restrictions regarding apps with Windows Phone 7. Can we please just leave it at that? This has gone on for long enough.--Interframe 02:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Interframe (talk • contribs)

I wouldn't call it "Content" restriction as such, nothing is being blocked or restricted because their simply won't be any applications to block, as creating such and application will not make it past the submission process. A better name would be Application restrictions which apply to the developers. As for 'circumventing', one could always get a developer account for $99 a year, then side-load whatever apps they want onto it though Visual Studio. 118.90.87.224 (talk) 02:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Search

Just questioning the recent editing on the Search subsection. A key difference between WP7 and Android is that Android allows OEMs and network carriers to change the default search engine to something other than Google. I know that Motorola sells phones in Asia that default to Yahoo search and services. In that case, Motorola just removed Google's stuff. Many device makers in China remove Google search and replace it with China's Baidu engine. Microsoft does not allow OEMs or networks to do this. It may affect WP7's reach into China. I think it is relevant and should not have been deleted.--Lester 04:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it fair to compare Windows Phone 7 to Windows Mobile?

First off, I think this article in general is poorly written. Most of it hardly talks about the product itself and instead compares it to everything else (other mobile OS's). I understand this gives the reader some context but, this article should not be a comparative buying guide to help determine what mobile OS platform the reader should buy into. And currently, the way this article is written is as if its only purpose is to point out what it doesn't have over its competitors. There is already an article (Mobile operating system) that objectively compares mobile operating systems with each other.

Another thing to point out is that if its even fair to compare Windows Mobile to Windows Phone 7. From a technical perspective, they really are two completely different platforms. Windows Mobile is older and Microsoft's focus with it was completely different years ago because the smartphone market was different. Microsoft has changed the way they create and design their mobile OS and just because Windows Mobile had a feature (like a file system), doesn't mean its worth mentioning. There are things Microsoft took away from Windows Mobile because they shifted their focus from power users to the broader everyday consumer, is there something wrong with that? And even if we`re comparing features-to-features here with WP7 and other mobile OS's, putting that all in a table (which already exists in the right article) makes more sense and is far, far more objective than sentences. The Apple iOS and Google Android articles rarely ever mention other mobile operating systems because these articles strictly focus on discussing the product itself in an objective way. --Interframe (talk) 03:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you say; this article seems to have turned into a giant screed decrying about "what could have been". I think it is fair to compare it to Windows Mobile, but it needs to be summarized more and there needs to be some massive slice and dicing in the prose. It is just rather negatively framed in general, needs a more neutral tone, especially since it isn't even released yet. At least the editors put in Microsoft's view on some of the issues, but even those are often framed in a negative light... Ryan Norton 09:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Interframe wrote "There are things Microsoft took away from Windows Mobile because because they shifted their focus from power users to the broader everyday consumer". Then you would expect two different operating systems: one for power users (an upgrade of Windows mobile 6.5) and Windows phone 1.0 7 for the everyday consumer, but there is only one. Andries (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, see some of my comments above. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

First, this issue began when Microsoft itself called a press conference and announced that Windows Phone 7 "will not be feature complete". The second thing is that the technology press have written many many articles about what was in Windows Mobile that won't be in Windows Phone 7: MobileTechWorld, Fierce Developer magazine, ComputerWorld, PC World, InformationWeek. Need to see any more? The third issue is that the comparisons come from the version numbers that Microsoft has chosen. Version 6.5 transitioning to version 7. It's not often that any product loses features going from V6.5 to V7. We are reflecting what the major technology publications are saying. If you want more positive features listed, you need to add them. However, we shouldn't delete content that was widely covered in the press.--Lester 10:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a slightly different issue - if Microsoft build an OS from scratch and it doesn't contain something by design, how is that feature a 'missing' feature? It does not seem NPOV to me to use such a title for many (but not all) of the choices they have made. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think most people do not read very carefully and expect additional features in Windows phone 7 compared to Windows mobile 6.5. This is the usual trend of an upgrade. (Microsoft could also have called it Windows Phone 1.0) So I tend to agree with Lester that features present in Windows mobile 6.5 and not present in Windows phone 7 should be mentioned if there are reliable sources for them. Andries (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Lester wrote "We are reflecting what the major technology publications are saying". Yes, that exactly what this article does and its a problem. Modern day journalism is the furthest thing from being objective, its all about opinions, especially when it comes to technology journalism. The only thing this article should do is inform the reader about the product in the most objective way possible. Other mobile OS articles don't compare each other with other operating systems. The actual Mobile operating system article compares each mobile OS in an objective way by using a table instead of sentences. And yes, Microsoft should have actually called it "Windows Phone 1.0". However, what is more important and relevant? A name created by some marketing team, or the actual product/subject itself? How important and relevant are these missing features, especially if they were cut out by design? No one can say, not even the press, because its all about opinion, Wikipedia articles are not about opinion, its about facts. You can say "hey, here are these missing features" but how is it relevant if Microsoft excluded them by design, what if there is no demand for a particular feature? How do we know for sure? Its all about opinion. Seeing Windows Phone 7 as just a .5 upgrade is a huge mistake, because its too obvious how different it is from Windows Mobile. If all your going to do is compare feature-to-feature, why does this article even exist? This article already exists for that exact purpose. --Interframe (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the article should focus more on what it can do and less on what is missing, but again the average Joe with a brand new Windows 7 phone may get an unpleasant surprise that his colleague can do more with his old Windows mobile 6.5. Andries (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thats absolutely irrelevant to this article. And besides, no wireless carrier is even promoting Windows Mobile 6.5, very few people (outside of a small minority of professional business users and power users) will carry Windows Mobile 6.5 phones, that explains why Windows Mobile market share is dropping, nobody likes the mess that Windows Mobile currently is, because as Microsoft is learning with Windows Phone 7, its not about the features alone, its about the experience and how you integrate features into your products that matters. That also explains how different Windows Phone 7 is compared to the Windows Mobile of the past, despite the name (which is less meaningful of an argument than the actually product itself.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Interframe (talk • contribs) 23:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Let us focus on what we agree about. Everybody here, with the possible exception of Lester, thinks that this article is too negative and focuses too much on what Windows phone 7 cannot do and too little on what it can do and where it improves over Windows mobile 6.5. Andries (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, before you perform a whitewash of the article, to remove what you see as negative facts, your focus should be on what is verifiable and accurate. We should not add or delete any verified facts because the fact may look positive or negative to Windows Phone 7. We should not be aiming to create a positive or negative article.--Lester 14:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that we should handle this in a calm and professional way. We should also focus on determining whether parts of the article are relevant to Windows Phone 7. There can be a reference to back up anything, but the more important thing is whether or not its relevant to the article, specifically regarding the subject itself. A fact can stand alone, but without any context or deeper explanation behind the fact, it can seem irrelevant.--Interframe (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Lester, but again, as Ryan Norton, wrote the software has not been released yet. It is very uncommon to add previews to an article. For example Nokia N8/Symbian^3 that will be released in Oct. doest not contain previews. Omitted features may not be missing in practice. Andries (talk) 11:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Windows Phone 7 will not have backward compatibility with Windows Mobile 6.5 apps. - how is this a missing feature rather than a design choice? --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I see no contradiction between a missing feature and a design choice. A car designed to be without wheel has missing features because people expect wheels. People expect backwards compatibility. Andries (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, this section makes no sense at all in its current form, and has serious POV issues. Also, not having backward compatability IS a design choice, which is why with all the mobile mentions I thought the section was about compatability... apparently it is a laundry list of things from one person's POV that Microsoft won't include. Well, uh, too bad for that person but this is really unencyclopedic. There are really only about two ways you can approach this - "cancelled features" that Microsoft stated would be in Windows Phone 7, or the previously-mentioned "compatability" approach; there is no such thing as a NPOV list "missing features" on a future product, or really any product for that matter. Ryan Norton 18:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Notice also the lead of that section makes no sense when taken in context with the rest - it talks about features that microsoft expect to put in but not at launch - yet it then talks about backwards comptability and cut and paste, two features that they never intend to add. the whole thing is a mess. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Why do people want to delete information about missing features that Microsoft has held press conferences about? In the case of backwards compatibility, Microsoft said it could have been included if only Microsoft had more time. There wasn't enough time to include it. That's what Microsoft said. So why do you want to delete it? In the case of Cut & Paste, Microsoft announced that it has heard the voices of developers complaining about its omission, and is listening to the criticism. Microsoft has given long explanations about this, and said it had to prioritise development. Why delete it from Wikipedia, when Microsoft has given long explanations about why it was omitted? While everything could be called a design choice, the real reason it was omitted was the time factor.--Lester 20:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Who's talking about deleting it? I am simply saying, it's current presentation is not NPOV and that re-organisation and the use of a more neutral title is need. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Some people (above) have been talking about deleting the content. It has been established that "Missing Features" is how the technology press usually describes it (see the links I posted further up the thread). Some of the recently attempted headings, such as "Compatibility" (diff) and "Windows Mobile 6.5 features missing" (diff) are less accurate. Microsoft has run out of time, and many of these missing features will probably be restored some time in the future via software updates. I'm sure there will be announcements from Microsoft about this. However, it is not our concern whether a fact impacts positively or negatively on Microsoft's image. We should concern ourselves with verifiability. We should use heading names that reflect how the subject is most commonly known.--Lester 04:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there some sort of reading problem? read what I am saying - the lede of the section does not describe what is in the section, that has nothing to do with verification. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I see what happened. There used to be a sentence in that section, defining it as a list of features that were in Windows Mobile but not in Windows Phone 7. I didn't realize that someone had deleted it. I just restored it again (diff).--Lester 12:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah! Someone just deleted it again.--Lester 14:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Changes

I hope this article is better now, I've made some corrections and so on, but I think the main thing is the Reception section, which seems to me to be a much more balanced way of presenting the criticisms of WP7. Hopefully people can flesh it out with more opinions and references etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CalumCookable (talk • contribs) 21:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for making the article more neutral and more about Windows Phone 7 itself. It wont be long before Lester comes in and complains about his section. --Interframe (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The accepted mode of behavior in Wikipedia is to discuss radical changes to the article before making them, discuss it in a civil manner, with the aim of gaining consensus. I don't see this happening.-Lester 12:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I'm just wondering why it says "Latest Unstable Release" and how to change that to say "Stable" as it is released to manufacturing now. This is my first comment and am new to this. Beeboent (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Do not do that. Wikipedia does not have stable versions, only latest unstable releases. :) Andries (talk) 19:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

What's this?--intelati^(Call) 19:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Also on the Apple iOS page it says "Latest Stable Release" Beeboent (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to revert this edit by User:CalumCookable s second time, as rearranging the article layout wasn't discussed, nor were the 100 smaller changes made in the same single edit.--Lester 15:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

So I don't see what the problem is here. User:CalumCookable's solution was an excellent one. A Reception section makes more sense than just random sentences written by Wikipedia editors. After all, everything that was in the Missing Features section was backed up by resources that were opinion (in other words, modern-day journalism). Currently, the tone of the article is all negative. The features section is poorly written and focuses on having a negative tone. The Reception section should be the only place where opinions matter because thats what reception is, the rest of the article should strictly focus on the product itself. There is currently a strong lack of focus on the article, after User:CalumCookable made changes and added the reception section, the article was far, far more neutral and actually more about the topic itself. --Interframe (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, OK, so my edits, while not individually massive, were, combined, too dramatic. But Wikipedia policy, while placing heavy emphasis on consensus, also says "be bold". and the article in its current condition is a disgrace. Apart from anything else, the language is incomprehensible (Wikipedia says use plain English and not jargon) and the organisation a jumbled mess, to say nothing of the fact that almost every single section spends more time pointing out what the OS lacks than what it has. That's not an encyclopedic article, it's a hate piece. I'm also mindful that the general public now use Wikipedia as their primary reference source, and such a biased article on such a major topic is not in the interests of anyone except competing mobile OS developers. I am absolutely adamant that my latest revision is better - it does not remove any of the existing facts or references (which I admit my original changes did), it simply corrects the tone towards a balanced centre, improves the readability and fluidity of the prose, and puts criticism where it belongs - in its own section with quotes from decent sources which state their opinions. CalumCookable (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I would redo the grammar issues one at a time writing the summaries carefully to explain what you are doing. That would improve this article ALOT. thanks--intelati^(Call) 18:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I think I shall put up subsections debating each change individually before I do anything —Preceding unsigned comment added by CalumCookable (talk • contribs) 18:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Make sure to Explain the changes and please sign your posts--intelati^(Call) 18:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry haha, sometimes I forget :) CalumCookable (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

OK so the consensus seems to be to do the cleanup but continue to debate the missing features bit. I'll put back the agreed changes now CalumCookable (talk) 08:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No, CalumCookable, you did not achieve any consensus, as you made your edits before discussing or defining what you were going to do.--Lester 12:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you just deliberately obstructive? LOOK DOWN THE PAGE. I described every single change and invited and received comments on them. The Cleanup section also lists people in support of my changes. The only one who disagrees with my changes is you. I agreed to let the Missing Features section be for now, as it is more hotly contested, but someone else has implemented the changes I originally made. It appears consensus HAS been reached, and you simply have an interest in returning and maintaining this article in its original terrible state. CalumCookable (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Internet Explorer

OK, first of all, I think the title of this section should be changed to "web browsing". Second, I don't think the body of the section is acceptable in its current form. Currently, it says:

• No Flash at launch
• Flash coming soon
• Something about the rendering engine
• Automatic updates

No real information about features - only what it lacks and a few tidbits of info of minimal interest. I agree they're valuable, but not at the expense of descriptions of features. My version (along with contributions from other editors) said:

• Rendering engine
• Favourites and start tiles
• UI features
• Flash coming soon
• Automatic updates

Can you see now that I only added information? I did not destroy any of the existing facts, and all the new stuff was referenced! I'd like to invite discussion over whether I can change JUST THIS SECTION back to my version. CalumCookable (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

just make sure to state it has no flash at launch. It's fine.(revert to your edits)--intelati^(Call) 18:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the IE section should be reverted back your edits. However, thats just my opinion, I'm not sure how many other people we need to agree on this, but it seems dead-obvious this sub-section is currently poorly written. The bigger deal is the Reception section, in which case, I'm sure the only person who would disagree about replacing the Missing features section with that would be User:Lester. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Interframe (talk • contribs) 18:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I will mention no Flash at launch. And I'll wait for the OK from Lester anyway, I don't want this pointless reverting war, my time is more valuable than that. I know myself that a poorly-written Wikipedia article isn't going to stop me buying a WP7; I'm already sold. CalumCookable (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the worst place for a buying guide. PLEASE do not allow the website to change your opinions for buying things.--intelati^(Call) 18:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I know, as I said, I love the OS. But the fact is most ordinary folk who don't even know you CAN edit wikipedia DO treat everything here as gospel fact and it influences them accordingly. CalumCookable (talk) 18:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

If there were multiple browsers, we could have a "Web Browsers" section. However on Windows Phone 7, there is only a single browser available on this platform: Internet Explorer. That's why the heading should stay as is. Other browser vendors have stated they won't be coming due to Microsoft's insistence that browsers must be coded in Silverlight. That's actually important and relevant information. Changing "no Flash at launch" to "Flash coming soon" is plain wrong. We should not predict the future, or tell people "it's coming soon" when we don't konw. We don't have a launch date for Flash. We only know that it won't be there for launch.--Lester 23:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Search

Similar to above really. Before:

"Microsoft's hardware requirements stipulate that every handset must have a dedicated hardwired search button on the front panel. Bing will be the only default search engine on Windows Phone 7 handsets. Microsoft said it would allow other search companies to build an app for Windows Phone 7 if they wished. WP7 can also search Bing by voice using the TellME, this can be activated by clicking and holding the Windows Button. By hitting the search button while an app is loaded will result in local search in applications that choose to utilize this function."

My version:

"Microsoft's hardware requirements stipulate that every Windows Phone must have a dedicated Search button on the front of the device that performs different actions. Pressing the search button while an application is open will allow users to search within applications that take advantage of this feature; for example, pressing Search in the People hub will let the user search their contact list for specific people.

In other cases, pressing the Search button will allow the user to perform a search of web sites, news, and map locations using the Bing application.

Windows Phone 7 also has a voice recognition function, powered by TellMe, which allows the user to perform a Bing search or launch applications by speaking. This can be activated by pressing and holding the phone's Start button.

Bing will be the only default search engine on Windows Phone 7 handsets[40], but Microsoft stated that it will allow search engine applications from other developers."

See? Not that much difference! But it sounds more neutral, because it's not immediately starting with "oh, it can't do this and that", and it is also better English. Request opinions on whether I can change just this section back. CalumCookable (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on changing this, more (and better) information about Bing search functionality was added with you version. --Interframe (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Go change it.--intelati^(Call) 18:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Zune

• Looks like Zune HD
• Zune Pass

My version:

• Looks like Zune HD
• Music, videos, podcasts
• Buy music
• Zune Pass
• Pictures hub - pics from Facebook and Live mixed with camera photos
• Upload/comment photos
• Zooming UI
• Better English, less vague

Same again, change only this section please? Also to get an idea of consensus I'll come back tomorrow and if the number of users who think it's a good idea to make these changes is more than the number of users who disagree, I'll make the changes; otherwise, I won't. Or, do I need to get CONSENSUS on what consensus means as well? CalumCookable (talk) 18:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

thats good, just make sure to keep the wordiness "DOWN" (oops) of the section--intelati^(Call) 18:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I say go ahead with the changes to the this sub-section. It adds more useful info, I don't see how anyone could disagree. --Interframe (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding layout and miscellanea

I don't think the relationship to the Kin and the name of the product deserve whole sections all to themselves - I think it would be better if they were included as subsections of the History section. Consensus?

Also, I think Application Development and Application Restrictions should be combined into a single Applications section with subsections of Development and (as another editor suggested) Content restrictions. I think the sentence about the OS languages should go in the History section under a Launch subsection, while the sentence about Marketplace countries could either stay in this section or move to the Launch subsection of the History section. Consensus?

The sentence about some OEMs taking payment and then reneging on the deal should be removed as it is not referenced and is not believable when you're dealing with huge corporations like Microsoft and HP. CalumCookable (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That sentence you say doesn't have a reference, did have a reference. You deleted it in this edit. Word search for the sentence that starts with "Some handset manufacturers", and the reference at the end of that paragraph was from TechCrunch magazine, but you deleted it anyway, claiming there was no reference.--Lester 11:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Yes, and Yes.--intelati^(Call) 19:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with these 3 changes. --Interframe (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and something else, I would like to change "History of phone development and marketing" to just "History". What else would it be? History of cats? Maybe in the future we could break Marketing out into its own section if we can write about the advertisements they run and so on. CalumCookable (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Lol, yeah, did not notice that.--intelati^(Call) 19:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Another thing: I'd like to change "went RTM" in the introduction to "was released to manufacturing". Not only is this better English, it provides the uneducated reader with an implied definition, rather than them having to go and find out what RTM stands for before they can understand the sentence. CalumCookable (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it makes sense to change it to "released to manufacturing". --Interframe (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Seconded.intelati^(Call) 19:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Missing Features section

I think this section needs to be seriously reworked. I mean, Windows Phone 7 doesn't have a built in toaster but that isn't listed as a "missing feature". I mean if you go to any other phone article there isn't a list of missing features for things like gyroscope support. As far as I know, the only phone in the world with that is the iPhone 4 (not released yet). Why is it that we don't list this on every other phone article. I think Wikipedia articles are about what something IS rather that what something ISN'T. Why isn't there a list of missing features on the iOS, Android, WebOS, or Symbian platform? Is it because none of these platforms are missing features a phone platform could have? All phone platforms are missing features that the others have but for some reason, the Windows Phone 7 gets a big "Missing Features" section. Unless I'm given a compelling reason not to, I am going to change this section quite a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainStack (talk • contribs) 23:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

But Windows Phone 7 does have Toast  :) --Lester 08:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Microsoft made a widely-reported announcement about gyroscope. I believe a lot of the other features were things that were previously in Windows Mobile 6.5, but will be removed from Windows Phone 7. Added to that, Microsoft made another announcement that Windows Phone 7 will not be "feature complete", so Microsoft set the ball rolling on this issue.--Lester 21:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

With Windows Mobile, they jammed in whatever feature it was without giving it serious thought and effort. Microsoft has publicly commented on the fact that they do not intend to leave missing features out forever and they have the ability to update the software without the user having to hope the next version will be available for the phone. Ultimately, the Missing Features sections is useless because Microsoft will add the missing features to the software eventually, and they wont just simply add it, they'll try do something new with it and innovate, as they've been doing so far with Windows Phone 7. --Interframe —Preceding undated comment added 01:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC).

The title is not NPOV - if a company decided not to do something that is *not* a 'missing feature', leaving out cut and paste is a design choice not something that is 'missing. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

This sectino is the usual negative-POV slant that wikipedia gives all things MS. Utter crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.0.95 (talk) 01:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

To Cameron Scott: Was leaving out cut and paste "a design choice"? There have been hundreds of article on this, but I never heard one that said C&P was left out as a design choice. I figured many of these features were left out because of time restraints in getting the OS to market. The compass is also interesting, as some Windows Mobile 6.5 phones had a compass which worked (eg the Samsung Omnia II), so it's another feature that Windows Phones used to have which has been taken away.--Lester 04:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You are getting into original research, the reference in our article says that Microsoft left it out because most users don't use or need it. Now you could *guess* this is not the complete truth but we work off verification not guesswork. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

OK. It was the compass API that Microsoft said it didn't have time for, but it would appear somewhere down the track in a later edition of WP7.--Lester 11:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a pretty good case to move a lot of the missing features scattered around the article into the Missing Features section. They are missing features because they used to exist on previous Windows Mobile phones, but for some reason have been excluded from Windows Phone 7.--Lester 08:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I just want to say I thought this section was about winmobile vs. Windows Phone 7 and others did too apparently, because "missing features" on a future product makes no sense at all and is just a POV screed. Ryan Norton 18:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe that this section should be reworked into a Windows Mobile 6.x vs. Windows Phone 7 comparison, assuming it makes sense to retain it at all. Are there features that Microsoft has revealed as being planned for the future? Yes. Are there features that existed in the Windows Mobile platform that won't exist in the Windows Phone platform? Sure. Is having a plan to add features in the future to a new product line and deciding to not support some features from a previous product line in anyway different from what every other company does? No. The logic that underlies including these so-called "missing features" would similarly demand that an article on the modern English language contain a "missing features" section denoting the absence of the thorn character and various vowel ligatures along with the failure to retain the case ending system that previous users of English in the 9th and 10th century found convenient in order to convey the function of a noun in a sentence along with some speculation about the conjugation of the present tense of the verb "to be" in the future with citations to research into colloquial usages that are presently found. It would ultimately require that every single page on Wikipedia list as "missing features" everything that could conceivably exist in some version of the topic but that isn't found in that particular version. At a minimum, I would suggest that this be changed to an "Omitted features" section similar to what is presently found in the article on the iPad and that it be reworked into a prose format rather than its current list format. Mike McL (talk) 10:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this section of the article has caused controversy indeed. We talked about this below, you can say to reader "here is a missing feature from this product", but nobody can say if a specific feature is important or relevant to the product itself. Someone people may have no need for copy/paste or true multitasking, and if you do, thats your preference, not the world's, therefore it may not even be worth mentioning in an article like this. And besides, if were going to compare mobile operating systems, this article already exsists for that reason. --Interframe (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I second what InterFrame states above. "Missing" compared to what? The list is ridiculous. What other mobile OS supports Windows Rights Management Services? This whole section should be dropped. It doesn't make any sense to include it because the entire concept is relative. Many of the other mobile OSs were introduced missing the same features. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.200.176 (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I (CaptainStack) started the discussion to remove the "Missing Features" section and it has been thrown back and forth since I brought it up. I stand by what I said originally which is that Wikipedia is about what something IS rather than what it ISN'T. The phone doesn't have a built in toaster but that's not a "missing feature" and even if you can find an article or reviewer to cite that is a criticism, doesn't mean it belongs in Wikipedia. I vote for this whole section to be removed, and if not, SERIOUSLY REWORKED. I will do so myself in a day or so if I don't hear a compelling reason to not do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainStack (talk • contribs) 00:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

CaptainStack is right, the 'Missing Features' sections is inherently negative, and does not talk about the platform, but what people OPINIONS of what should be in WP7. As such, perhaps renaming the section into 'Announced Features', explaining the features are to be released in updates but not here yet (as confirmed by Microsoft) would be prudent. As for the 'Missing features,' let's leave a subjective comparison of the value of one feature vs another to the reviewers and opinion pieces? Perhaps, after launch, we can discuss this again...unsigned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.65.222 (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with most of the contributors that the "Missing Features" section has a serious negative bias towards Windows Phone 7 which does not reflect the spirit of Wikipedia. The very basis of comparision with windows Mobile 6.x is not warranted because Microsoft has admitted that WP7 is a totally new software with no similarities (or backward compatibility) with 6.x. The entire design philosophy is different from 6.x as also from other OSes in vogue, hence criticisms like 'no access to central file system', 'no removable storage', 'no application switcher' are not logical as different ways are available in this OS towards the same end. Similarly, most of the tasks for which C&P is used, are supported in a different manner. Secondly, the decision by Microsoft engineers not to provide support for certain functions (no NDK, no sockets, no 3rd party multitasking etc) is indicative of clarity of thought and conviction that user experience is paramount. Indeed it is praiseworthy that they are not releasing half baked software to the masses like Android and continuing even basic development using people as guinea pigs. Thirdly, I'm sure the Wikipedia page on iOS or Android does not list that XBox Live and Office Mobile 2010 are not supported even though these are the most popular in the world in their class (or even XNA/Silverlight support). Hence I see no point why lack of features/services of other phones should be bemoaned, that too at this stage when no user feedback is available. Salilshukla (talk) 11:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

A call to cleanse Windows Phone 7

There is currently a discussion involving cleanup Windows Phone 7 article at WP:AN/I#A call to cleanse Windows Phone 7 Illegal Operation (talk) 03:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It's sad that a magazine tries to rally its fanbase to come here and cleanse the Wikipedia article. It's also sad that you feel the urge to use the same language in your edit summaries as the magazine did to attack me.--Lester 05:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest we put aside personal differences altogether and focus on content, not the contributor. This may be a long bumpy ride. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Please Just Focus At The Task At Hand Please.--intelati^(Call) 15:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion involving cleanup Windows Phone 7 article at WP:WQA#A call to cleanse Windows Phone 7 --intelati^(Call) 16:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I want to note that I was editing this article long before that article was published. History doesn't lie. Illegal Operation (talk) 01:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Relation to Kin?

Windows Phone 7 has nothing to do with Kin. Both use Silverlight, but that's all they have in common. Kin is no based on WP7 and WP7 is not based on KIN. Apparently nobody want this section except Lester. Illegal Operation (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree there's not much in it, but they do both have vaguely similar UIs (particularly in Zune) and social netowrking integration. Though now Kin is discontinued it is of less importance. CalumCookable (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Before you go and delete this entire referenced section, the section existed before the demise of the Kin phone. If you read the references, you see that it was Microsoft linking Windows Phone 7 to the Kin phone, as part of its promotional efforts. Back then it was considered positive (and nobody complained about the section). Now that the Kin phone failed, and has become an embarrassment, some want to delete the section, forget about Microsoft's earlier linkages of WP7 with Kin, and sweep the whole thing under the carpet to avoid further embarrassment. I have not seen any valid reason for its deletion.--Lester 13:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't delete it. It's still there. Have you even looked at the article recently? CalumCookable (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

That's like saying that Windows 7 is related to MS-DOS. Illegal Operation (talk) 02:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"Core components". yeah, agree with the deletion.--intelati^(Call) 03:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Missing features

The missing features section sits uncomfortably with me as possible WP:SYNTH. For example; do we have a source that identifies the fact that these features are missing as notable? If so that needs to be the focus of the section, if not it is very dubious. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 18:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

We currently discussing the option of replacing the Missing features with a Reception section. We have discussed the relevance of the Missing features section before, and nobody has really pointed out how it is relevant to the article itself. You can say multitasking or copy and paste is missing, but how is it relevant to this article? What if somebody has no need for those features, its all about opinion. Thats why a Reception section makes much more sense, because it is common among Wikipedia articles and it has to do with opinion of the press and so on. And if were comparing operating systems, this is not the article to do so, this is the article for such discussion. --Interframe (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yup pretty much agree. I saw one of the sources called it a "hot topic" so I expanded the intro, using that source, temporarily so it is no longer synth-y. I agree with the idea about reception, particularly if the list gets switched into prose. Much nicer. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 18:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Though, regardless of what the title of the section is and how it's ordered, it appears that there is indeed a good amount of controversy around such missing things and that is a fact that is notable, per the sources used in the section. Silverseren^C 18:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is a fact that features are missing. But it is more of a reaction than anything else. I don't think replacing this section would be a problem if we took the already existing references and placed them into a Reception section. If a feature is missing, who can say whether or not it matters, if someone says it matters, thats their personal opinion, it may not matter to somebody else. --Interframe (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

...no, that's not how it works. If someone says that it matters in a reliable publication, then it is notable, regardless of it being their personal opinion. That's how notable and reliable sourcing works. We can't use our own opinions as editors to discredit the notable opinions of actual writers of newspapers and books. Silverseren^C 19:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you would have to assume modern-day journalism, specifically in the technology space, is never biased, and that isn't always the case. We would have to dispute whether or not a publication is reliable, and that is difficult to do when it comes to technology journalism. Either way, a Reception section just makes so much more sense in general. --Interframe (talk) 19:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It is too early for a reception section. No phone has been reviewed. Andries (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

But this isn't about a phone, it's about an operating system CalumCookable (talk) 19:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There is room for a media reaction section.intelati^(Call) 19:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that we should create a new section named "Features In Older Versions of Windows Mobile Not Found in Windows Phone 7" or something to that degree (preferably shorter). As I've said many times, a missing feature implies that it's something that is supposed to be there, and in the case of these phones, all that is supposed to be there is whatever Microsoft and their OEMs decide to put there. It's not fair for us to call lack of expandable memory support a "missing feature" just because we wanted it. However, we can point out that there are features in Windows Mobile 6.5 that won't be in Windows Phone 7. There should be a section for this and it should be written from a neutral point of view please. Additionally, down the line we should make a "Reception" section where we can put VALID criticism, though this should probably wait until devices ship and tech sites and reviewers get their hands on final hardware and software. "Missing Features" should eventually be phased out completely when the two sections I described are properly implemented. What does everyone think of this? CaptainStack (talk) 07:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

First, Missing Features is not "WP:SYNTH", as it was Microsoft that brought up the issue of Missing Features.MobileTechWorld, and note that it was Microsoft that called it "Missing Features". It's one of the most covered aspects of Windows Phone 7 in the media. I repeat the following links: Fierce Developer magazine, ComputerWorld, PC World, InformationWeek. If the media calls it "Missing Features", why shouldn't we?--Lester 13:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Lester, Wikipedia is not a magazine. Information that is not encyclopedic does not belong in Wikipedia. Just because the media considers a feature "missing" doesn't mean that it is fair and neutral to put it in Wikipedia, especially under a section named something as negative as "missing features". The reason Microsoft comments on this stuff is because they have to deal with the media. I think that there should be a few new sections made:

• A section for announced features
• A section for features that were in Windows Mobile 6.5 that have been removed from Windows Phone 7 and have not been announced (so something like cut and paste would go in the first section but not the second)/
• A reception section that contains valid criticism only (for instance, calling a lack of Silverlight a criticism is stupid because hardly any web content is in Silverlight and no mobile web browser supports it).

What do you think of that scheme? CaptainStack (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd say go for it.--intelati^(Call) 17:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Intelati, I'd love to do this, and I'd even be willing to do it all myself, but knowing that it will just be put back to how it was in a matter of hours, I'm not going to jump the gun just yet. We'll need to get everyone on the same page first I guess. CaptainStack (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I support this notion, so long as we hold to the notion that the criticism section is strictly sourced--multiple reliable 3rd party sources only. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that the missing features section be a subsection of the Reception because the latter is too weak on its own.--intelati^(Call) 04:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

A little earlier in this discussion, I provided links to a number of major publications with specific articles about the WP7 missing features. That proves it isn't a small issue to be hidden inside another issue. Second, a week ago, it had its own level 2 heading, but you moved it under the Reception heading (even though it has nothing to do with the reception, as it was an issue that Microsoft instigated by announcing at a press conference that WP7 was not feature complete). 'intelati', shouldn't the onus be on you to justify why the missing features issue should be part of 'Reception'?--Lester 11:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand. Are you arguing that putting the sources you cited (which look fine, btw) and the material in a reception section is somehow hiding them? If so, can you clarify why you feel that is the case? --Nuujinn (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Previously, there was a Features section, and a Missing Features section right below it. The reason there is a Missing Features section is because Microsoft said that when Windows Phone 7 is released, it will not be feature complete. Many features that existed in Windows Mobile 6.5 will not be in Windows Phone 7. Microsoft has said that most of these missing features will be added in the future via updates. I provided the links to major publications purely to prove that there has been massive interest in the media about this issue. The issue is that WP7 will not be feature complete at launch. That has absolutely nothing to do with Reception. It has to do Microsoft's fight against time (which is why the features get added later). The issue is hugely important, which is why the Missing Features heading should not be moved under the Reception heading. I get the impression that some people want to move praise of Windows Phone 7 to the top of the article, and anything that may be deemed less praiseworthy gets moved to the bottom, in the last possible place possible.--Lester 23:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Missing Features section

Are we going to discuss this serious or not seriously? If we are to have a genuine discussion, then it is disingenuous to delete the section while the discussion is still in progress. Here is the current version of the Missing Features, as it was at the start of the discussion. It should not be changed while the issues are still being discussed.--Lester 23:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

We should wait till others voice their opinion on this. The problem with the missing features section is that it is perceived as purely negative. Lester, you argue that parts of the article are too positive. Could you give some example of this so we can fix that? Job 1 should be making sure the article has a NPOV tone and that the article actually discusses the product itself in detail without a positive or negative point of view. I think its fair to say the Reception section is balanced in terms of the positive and negative reviews of WP7. --Interframe (talk) 00:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to what some believe, I have no intention of deleting positive facts about Windows Phone 7, as long as they are well referenced (anything not referenced properly should be fair game for deletion). However, I don't like to see well referenced facts or sections get deleted, purely because of whether it looks good or bad for Microsoft. In the case of Missing Features, the coverage has been massive. For example, the lack of Cut, Copy & Paste has over 10 million articles worldwide (Google Search). It's no just a Slashgear comment as the article tries to make out. It's an inherent design choice Microsoft made because it need more time to implement it well, and C&P will be added to WP7 at some later time.--Lester 00:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes anything unrefed should be deleted or find a reference.

I personally think the C&P section is fine as is.

The rest of it, well, i'm still not sure.--intelati^(Call) 00:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it has to do with the way this section is written and laid out. For example, the first sentence talks about WP7 being criticized for missing features, and while some publications criticized Microsoft, others simply just reported on it, without opinion. The article is written as if having these missing features is absolutely negative, while some missing features, such as Rights Management Services, few people couldn't care about besides the few outside of Microsoft's target audience (the average end user). The article also focuses on comparing WP7 to WinMo 6.5, and I don't think this is right or fair. Despite the numbers in these names, Microsoft's goals and direction is/was completely different than Windows Mobile (where the focus was strictly the business/power user). Not only this, but the Mobile operating system article compares all mobile OS`s, included WinMo 6.5 and WP7 in the most subjective way possible - by using a table. Like the Android and Apple iOS articles, we shouldn't compare mobile OS`s but should only strictly focus on the subject(WP7) itself. I think there is room for a missing features section, but it just needs to be reorganized and rewritten to have a more neutral tone and use the same references Lester has provided. --Interframe (talk) 00:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

See what you mean. Support--intelati^(Call) 00:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that Microsoft only intends it for consumers. There are lots of articles on the net, quoting Microsoft's business intentions with the platform. Issues like IPsec and Office Rights Managment are important to business users. Point form is good, because it just lists the briefest point without opinion. I'm happy for Microsoft responses to also be added, in areas where Microsoft has responded.--Lester 00:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... hows making a note for each that says this usually only applies to enterprise?--intelati^(Call) 00:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

An 'enterprise' note sounds a bit cumbersome, but I may agree if it is a way of moving forward. 'Interframe', why is comparing WM6.5 to WP7 unfair? You could say the ditching of the stylus pen was a design choice. But a lot of the other things are missing because of the race against time. Example, the unfinished APIs. I'm sure Microsoft will be working around the clock to get them done as soon as possible.--Lester 00:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm just trowing out ideas, so sure if it works, or if anyone else has a better idea, tell it.

Window Mobile was excatly what it sounds like a Mobile windows instillation. Windows Phone is suppost to compete with the android and the iOS (or whatever it's called).--intelati^(Call) 01:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The part about the stylus pens were not my words, but that of Terry Myerson, the VP Windows Phone engineer, who was explaining why backwards compatibility just couldn't work. And you could also think about that logically, WP7 apps are written in Silverlight or XNA, both of these technologies are not supported in WinMo 6.5, so how could it even be possible to have WinMo 6.5 apps on WP7? Also the fact that WinMo 6.5 app are not finger friendly and does not fit into the design language in WP7, which MS feels is one of the most important aspects of the OS. I feel that the mention of backwards compatibility isn't necessary but its there because of the only person inside of MS who said it was due to time restrictions. --Interframe (talk) 01:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Backwards compatibility has been a big issue. Here's another 30,000 articles on the issue (Google Search) which should prove media interest in the topic. Some articles are positive (saying MS had to cut the rope). Some are negative. Some just state that backwards compatibility is not there. On a technical level, some backwards compatibility could always be achieved if the resources were put into it (as the MS guy basically said).--Lester 04:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

A consumer is generally somebody that can have a work life in addition to their personal life, and thats how it has been described by Microsoft far too many times. Issues like IPsec and Office Rights Management are generally things that only IT Admins would care about, not an employee working for a business. I think we may also have to ask ourselves what of the missing features are relevant, does any competing platform support Office Rights Managements? Should we really put something in this article if it only really matters to the journalists who are writing this and feel the need to report on a missing feature only because it doesn't satisfy their personal needs to use WP7? Like I said earlier, some journalist only reported missing features and did not comment on whether it was a good or bad thing. That would be more neutral as opposed criticism that is perceived as negative, which would belong under the Reception section. --Interframe (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Cameron Scott had previously argued for the section to be a comparison of what features were in Windows Mobile 6.5 that will not be in Windows Phone 7. In fact, the list used to be just that, if you look at pre-August versions. While new features that didn't exist before have pleased some, there are enough happy Windows Mobile 6.5 users who are not pleased that some of the features they liked using have disappeared for whatever reason. Document Rights is one of those features that was in WM6.5 that has now disappeared. What features are added, and what features are removed are valid topics. How can one be relevant but not the other? That's why those two issues belong in sections one after the other, as it used to be in this article.--Lester 04:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I propose that only things that BOTH Android and iOS have that Windows Phone 7 doesn't are consider missing. This way we have a formula to determine what is missing and what is not. Illegal Operation (talk) 03:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough.--intelati^(Call) 03:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

To me, it has nothing to do with comparing WP7 to iOS or Android. Windows Phone 7 is in a unique situation, because it is late, because Microsoft said it doesn't have time to add these features before release time, and that it said most of them will be fixed later. If iOS or Android have features that their vendors have said will be added later, then those features should be added to those articles as well. If iOS or Android have features in one version that have disappeared in the next version, then that is also worthy of listing in their respective articles. Any feature that appears or disappears is noteworthy.--Lester 04:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

As it currently stands the section should be cut. It is badly organised and the wording leaves a lot to be desired. It should be cut into the reception section and rewritten to say a) why this is an important part of the crtitical reception (i.e. those sources we had before that said this was an important issue) and then just deal with what is missing. Having a separate section is WP:UNDUE and in it's current form is WP:NPOV --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 08:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Clean Up

There is a major reconstruction beginning on the article. We need community consensus to continue, please voice your opinions on the article. Thanks intelati^(Call) 21:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

See above for current conversations--intelati^(Call)

Specifically the recent discussion topics named "Missing features." --Interframe (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment under Support for "Support" for all of the changes by CalumCookable under the "Changes" section.--intelati^(Call) 01:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a "clean-up" and a "cleanse", but it wasn't stated exactly what was going to be done to "clean" the article. Instead of waiting for opinions of uninvolved editors, those calling for "cleaning" have already gone ahead and "cleansed" the article. Why bother discussing it? You've already done it without waiting!--Lester 10:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I Did nothing. CalumCookable looked at the notes in the section and made the changes himself. Anyway look at the "Changes" subsections anyway as stated in the instrutions--intelati^(Call) 16:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The article need extensive cleanup. The missing features, for example, is just a list of features that some Wikipedia editors are unhappy about. Illegal Operation (talk) 01:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Support Cleanup

• I think the article needs major cleanup. Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 23:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• Indeed. It has lots of information not written fron a Neutral Point of View. --Diego Grez (talk) 01:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• I think cleanup is desperately needed. Mostly I think that this article has a distinct bias against the platform throughout. Please look at my posts on this discussion page (mostly under the "missing features" discussions) along with my edits to the page itself for more information about what sorts of reorganization I think are required. CaptainStack (talk) 07:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Cleanup

Comments

• The "poll" above isn't clear what it's talking about. Yes, the article could use some cleanup. However, the gist of this RFC seems to be the "Missing features" section, and that section looks as good as the rest of the article. It's nice that changes to the article are being discussed above; as long as there's a process, the article should keep improving. For example, you can say after a proposed change is added to the "Changes" section above, once 2 days pass with no new comments, that change can be applied to the live article. This gives everyone time to voice their opinions, and will lead to fewer results and more productive editing. Shubinator (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Ah, thanks for the clarification Inelati on the "poll". I must !vote oppose since I can't specifically tell what changes are being proposed. For example, in the "Missing changes" section, does !voting "support" mean that I support axing the whole section? Replacing it with a media reception section? Passing a blank check usually results in more edit wars and disagreements down the road. Shubinator (talk) 01:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral now. I'd like to hear Lester's take on this. Personally I don't think an RFC is necessary here; discussion is still going on in the "Changes" section. Shubinator (talk) 01:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

As Shubinator said, the RFC didn't define any action beyond "cleaning". Even that is a charged term, as clean must be better than dirty, mustn't it? RFCs are a good idea, but it's better to have a specific action to comment on, rather than general "cleaning". Those who requested this RFC seem to be rearranging the article anyway, rather than waiting for comments. My impression is that some people want to sort out the positive facts from the negative facts (those aspects that may not look good for Windows Phone 7, such as it's lack of Cut, Copy & Paste). Here's how the article looked yesterday. Since then, recent edits have moved positive things to the top, while taking potentially negative facts to the bottom of the article (eg Missing Features), or deleting them altogether. Much of the History section has just been deleted, as part of this article cleanse, without any prior discussion whatsoever. In the editing frenzie, it's too hard to figure out who did what. But there was Ballmer's famous quote that he "screwed up" with Windows Mobile, which is why Microsoft changed directions and created Windows Phone 7. That's gone. A paragraph about launch partners has also been deleted, presumably because there are now less handset makers than Microsoft originally announced, which may look embarrassing for Microsoft I guess. It's really difficult to follow what changes are happening, as there is no discussion and often not even an edit summary. Just an editing frenzy.--Lester 12:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted nothing. It may appear that way, but all that's happened is that stuff has been organised into the correct sections CalumCookable (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Look at the size 40,089 bytes before CC's edits and then to 43,890 bytes at the last version edited by CC.--intelati^(Call) 17:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why some of the information is added except just to make Windows Phone 7 look bad. Do you see missing feature section on the iOS article and the Android article? Illegal Operation (talk) 01:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

IOS (Apple)#Unsupported technologies ? –xeno^talk 18:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but there was and is a real storm in the media about that particular issue, with apple and abobe staff, include CEOs, taking public potshots at one another for months now. We're supposed to be encyclopedic, and I think IOS (Apple)#Unsupported technologies is due weight for that particular issue. More relevant here is whether someone, even a reliable source, claiming that X does not have feature A is needed in an article. My personal feeling is that if a company announced a feature and that feature failed to materialize, and a reliable source makes note, it's worth covering. But an apple fanboy (such as myself) saying "hey, smartphone X lacks a toaster oven" or a rumor about an anticipated feature turns out to be unwarranted, the information is clearly not encyclopedic. Just a tupence. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Since there's another RFC tag below, I've removed the RFC tag from this section. If you are going to invite comments from the community you need to actually set out a problem and ask (a) concrete question(s) and not just make a vague statement about needing cleaning. –xeno^talk 13:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)