Talk:Microsoft Lumia 950/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I shall not stand for deletion, but...

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please refrain from creating pages for rumoured products prior to their official announcement, and please use reliable (non-rumour/non-beta) sources to verify this, today a page like this pollutes Wikipedia, tomorrow it will be a legitimate article, but please wait the right amount of time, 24 hours is not much. Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 22:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

"Buy 950 XL, get 950 free" promo

Latest comment: 8 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion

An anonymous editor (or editors) have been adding mention of the recent "Buy a 950 XL, get a 950 for free" promo Microsoft is running. I do not feel this is notable enough, especially for inclusion in the article's lead. It's just another of a number of sales promotions that the Lumia 950 has seen since its announcement (and limited to the US and Canada, from what I've read), and I don't feel it's Wikipedia's place to document such trivialities.

Further, the "due to low sales" part that the added content has contained is original research, as neither Microsoft nor any sources (in the most recent edit, The Verge) have confirmed that low sales are the reason for the promotion. There might be speculation, yes, but that cannot be presented as fact.

For the above reasons, I've reverted the added material so far. I'd like to hear the anon's arguments for the inclusion of the material, however, and any other editors' input would be appreciated as well. Indrek (talk) 09:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Indrek: Hi. I was studying the source and I find it has something worth mentioning:

It appears that Microsoft is clearing its inventory of Lumia devices, amidst poor sales and a lack of marketing. Microsoft revealed last week that it only sold 2.3 million Lumia handsets in the recent quarter, a massive 73 percent drop from the 8.6 million sold at the same time last year.

I feel this one has due weight. So, I have to support 92.29.146.89 in this. It is nothing that cannot be fixed with normal editing.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

By "something worth mentioning", I assume you mean the sales numbers? If so, I agree, but since the numbers are for all Lumia models, not just the 950, the proper article for that information would be Microsoft Lumia, and oh look, it's already covered there. Indrek (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

No, not that. Numbers alone are worthless until you put them in context and give them meaning. And this particular prose is the meaning. It indicates that the sale was so problematic that Microsoft was forced to clear its inventory.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not so sure it indicates what you think it indicates. For one, "amidst" does not mean "because of". Correlation does not imply causation, and all that. Like I said, Microsoft runs various promotions, sales and price reductions all the time, any of which could be speculated to be the result of poor sales by a sufficiently motivated writer.

Second, even the "clearing its inventory" part is just an assumption. Notice how the source says "It appears that", not "Microsoft has announced/confirmed that"?

So even if these two assumptions could be considered a significant viewpoint worthy of coverage (which is very much debatable), they definitely should not be misrepresented as fact, which the anonymous edits have been doing.

Also, my point about the proper article to cover that information being Microsoft Lumia, not this one, still stands. Indrek (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

It is amazing how your last message seems so different from your previous ones. Especially, I cannot make head or tail out of your first paragraph.

Anyway, +Support from me.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't even know how to respond to that, other than by saying that an editor of your experience should be able to conduct themselves in a more constructive manner. Indrek (talk) 17:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

It appears I have unwittingly upset you. Please rest assured that no offense was intended; I find we humans have so short a lifespan that are better off not spend it on destroying our own images by offending each other deliberately.

What I said was: I cannot make head or tail out of your first paragraph. Perhaps you'd be so kind to elaborate, clarify or recompose it?

Also, I do not support the current state of affair, i.e. revision 717769552→717775968. As I said earlier, I support writing about what seems to me a natural response from Microsoft to its low sales figures. If that is not what you perceive from the source (which puzzles me) I am afraid I do not support writing anything else.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, that is more constructive. I will clarify:

The paragraph you quoted earlier does not support the assumption that low sales numbers were the cause of the promotion in question.

All the source says is that event A - Microsoft giving away 950s with purchases of 950 XLs - might be ("It appears that") an indication of event B - Microsoft clearing away inventory -, which, if true, is happening at the same time as ("amidst") event C - Lumia sales being at or near an all-time low. You and the anon(s), on the other hand, seem to want the article to say that event A is part of ("clearing inventory by giving ... away") event B, which in turn was caused by ("due to") event C. Such a wording is simply not supported by the source.

If that is not what you perceive from the source (which puzzles me) I am afraid I do not support writing anything else. And I'm afraid I do not support writing anything that isn't explicitly stated in the source. What you or I "perceive from the source" is irrelevant. It puzzles me that you would argue for inserting obvious WP:SYNTH into the article. Indrek (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

SYNTH, eh? Okay, let's settle on that then. Anyway, writing about a promotion that has no significance beyond its promotional value is WP:ADVERT. Good luck. —Codename Lisa (talk) 09:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no need for Microsoft to announce or confirm anything. Wikipedia is based on independent sources. The Verge is a reliable source. 92.29.147.33 (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I never said there was such need. All I said was that we cannot misrepresent what the sources say. If the source says that "Lumia sales have fallen" and "Microsoft is offering a deal on two Lumias", we cannot write on Wikipedia that "Microsoft is offering a deal on two Lumias because sales have fallen." I've edited the sentence accordingly, so that it only reflects what the source says. I hope you will find my edits agreeable.

Regarding your most recent edit summary - "Keeping it until you can provide a good reason to remove it" -, please be advised that it is the responsibility of the editor who adds material to Wikipedia to prove that said material conforms to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines when challenged to do so. "Keep it unless there's good reason not to" is not how Wikipedia operates. Indrek (talk) 17:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Allow me to make the first point very clear. You cannot write that the promotion is "Due to low sales figures" if the source does not explicitly say that. And it doesn't. Inferring something from the source that isn't stated explicitly is original research, which is explicitly disallowed on Wikipedia, so kindly stop putting it into the article. Thank you. Indrek (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The standard is great

Latest comment: 8 years ago15 comments3 people in discussion

Moved from User talk:Codename Lisa § The standard is great

Hi, could you point me towards this standard that mandates reflist columns to be 30em wide? Because right now the list at Microsoft Lumia 950 looks pretty awkward to me, plus columns that are too narrow can harm readability. I can understand the need for narrower columns in articles with hundreds of refs, but the article in question is nowhere near that amount. Thanks! Indrek (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I saw it in Talk:Reflist along with a picture, but it seems a bot has archived it.

You can, however, post a message in that talk page asking for explanation as to why 30em was chosen as the standard and is being used everywhere.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't you think it is up to the one who invokes the standard to provide a reference?

From what I can read at Template:Reflist#Practices, 30em is only one of widely used practices, but the decision is ultimately "up to the editor". Indrek (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

If "standardness" was the reason, yes, it would be, which is not the case here. I reverted an unexplained change-for-the-sake-of-change. That's MOS:STABILITY area. As for "the standard is great", read it "30em's effect looks great". Indeed it works better than the alternative across the devices I have at hand. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, you're the one who first used the word "standard", but fair enough, I'll read it as "Codename Lisa's preference".

It's funny you should talk about "unexplained change-for-the-sake-of-change", though, considering it was you who changed the reflist from 40em to 30em, without any explanation whatsoever.[1] I merely changed it back when I noticed the reflist looking odd, with too narrow columns. So I have to disagree with you about 30em looking better.

One thing I do agree with you about is that this situation is governed by that section of the MOS you so helpfully linked to. And since your edit was in violation of that section (changing from one MOS-accepted style to another without good reason), it seems the article should go back to 40em.

Regards, Indrek (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Alright, let me go for a clean start: First, I acknowledge that my edit summary was non-communicative and sub-optimal. (It read: "Reverted unexplained deviation from the standard. The standard is great.")

If you want my official clarified reason as to why I reverted you, here it is: 30em is a de facto in Wikipedia and in that article because it is the optimal value for most devices. You changed it without providing a reason. Because the unstated reason was not obvious to me, I found it an unnecessary deviation from WP:EDITCONSENSUS and MOS:STABILITY. Hence, I expressed my disagreement per Wikipedia:Editing policy § Talking and editing with a revert. (Additional reading material in WP:BRD.)

Now, would you please state your reason for changing from 30em to 40em? Because I am about to call a WP:3O.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 08:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, it seems the chronology here needs some clarifying. Allow me:

The article originally used a single-column reflist.[2]
I added the |40em parameter,[3] as the reflist had grown long enough to warrant multiple columns. I chose 40em mainly because I've found narrower columns ill-suited for refs with full details.
You later changed the reflist from 40em to 30em,[4] without any explanation whatsoever. This was in violation of MOS:STABILITY (changing from a stable, MOS-accepted style to another style without a good reason).
I changed it back to 30em as part of a larger edit [5] when I noticed the columns being too narrow. Essentially, I too expressed my disagreement with a revert. In retrospect, I should have made it a separate edit and added an appropriate edit summary, but since a quick skim of the revision history didn't reveal when, who and why had changed it away from the established style in the first place, I didn't think too much of it.
You then changed it back to 30em again,[6] alluding to a standard you have since admitted does not exist.

I hope this clarifies things.

If you want my official clarified reason as to why I reverted you, here it is Actually, I'm not interested in that explanation. I understand you simply reverted back to your preferred version (technically violating WP:BRD in the process, per the chronology above, but I'm sure that was unintentional). I'd like to know why you changed from 40em to 30em in the first place.

30em is a de facto in Wikipedia and in that article because it is the optimal value for most devices. Once again, I'm going to have to ask you to provide some sort of evidence for this assertion. You say you saw something "in Talk:Reflist along with a picture" - would you mind looking it up? Unlike me, you'll know what you'd be looking for, so it shouldn't be too hard to find in the archives.

Hopefully you can find time to entertain this request of mine. Indrek (talk) 12:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

"Okay, it seems the chronology here needs some clarifying". No, it doesn't! Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. 1 October 2015, 29 January 2016 and 29 February 2016 are all ancient history. Edits made on those dates and not contested ever since are considered as having stuck.

"I'm going to have to ask you to provide some sort of evidence for this assertion." Here:

Also, you might want to have a look at this:

Template talk:Reflist/Archive 16#Visual comparison

Any more than this, however, no, I do not entertain your whimsy. Your editing history shows you have been to Wikipedia for quite a while and therefore you must know that 30em is de facto. Actually, it is my turn to say 40em is your preference.

All this said, I think I have tolerated your personal comments long enough. Either you will acknowledge the core problem and comment only on that, or else I am out of here for good. A number isn't worth tolerating so much PC. —Codename Lisa (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

It appears now I'm the one who has inadvertently upset you. Rest assured I meant only to clarify the situation, as you seemed to be operating under an incomplete recollection of the relevant edits (and yes, they are still relevant). None of my comments were aimed at your person, and I'm sorry if you read them as such. That said, I do have to express disappointment that you would dismiss a reasonable request for evidence as "whimsy". That is not a constructive approach to resolving a dispute.

Also, you might want to have a look at this: Template talk:Reflist/Archive 16#Visual comparison Interesting. I see one of the more recent comments on that page says that, quote, "many have objected to colwidth=30em, simply because it results in the columns being too narrow". That exactly reflects how I feel about it.

Your editing history shows you have been to Wikipedia for quite a while and therefore you must know that 30em is de facto. I know it is common. That doesn't mean it is the standard, and to be used to the exclusion of any other option.

Actually, it is my turn to say 40em is your preference. I have never claimed it to be anything but my preference.

Indrek (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A third opinion has been requested. I see a lengthy interchange between two editors, but it isn't entirely clear what the question is. I am leaving the Third Opinion request up in case either the editors clarify it or another editor is able to parse it. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Did you get that, Indrek? It is not obvious what the question is. The questions, obviously, is {{reflist}} or {{reflist}}? I support 30em because it has become the de facto on the virtue of having been the optimal value. 40em is so broad that gives only 2 column on a 1600-pixels-wide display. This gives a better idea: Template talk:Reflist/Archive 16#Visual comparison

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for chiming in! Yes, leaving aside the MOS:STABILITY issue, the question essentially boils down to whether to use 30em or 40em as the reflist column width. I support 40em as it keeps the columns slightly wider and the references therefore more readable, whereas 30em will split them over too many lines, resulting in a poorer experience. I've no doubt that 30em is a very common option, and might even be the better option for many articles, depending on the number of references and the citation style used, but on the devices I have, 40em seems to work better for this particular article. Hope this clarifies the situation! Indrek (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

It appears that the editors agree to disagree. Should the Third Opinion be closed? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, no. The dispute is still unresolved and a fresh perspective would be appreciated. Indrek (talk) 05:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that, it appears Codename Lisa has conceded. So yeah, no need for a 3O, the request can be closed. Thanks for your time anyway! Indrek (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)