Template talk:Surface models

Active discussions
WikiProject Microsoft (Rated Template-class)
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Changing list orderEdit

The Surface Book should come before Surface Hub as the device was released earlier. Thoughts?

Daylen (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The Surface Hub was announced earlier, but I agree that the Surface Book should come before as it's a more significant device in the family. Indrek (talk) 12:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Type of templateEdit

¿Wouldn't it be better to migrate this template to one akin to Microsoft Lumia's? Let me create an example model here.

¿Is this option doable? If there is anything that need be reformed please tell me, this is just the first draft of a concept.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 08:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Another way we could possibly go is:

This one is more simplified and focuses more on branding rather than generations.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 09:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

A quick note, the "other" section is organised alphabetically as opposed to based on either release or announcement.
Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 09:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft #3 is organised more like the Microsoft Lumia template which is based on operating systems with which the device was released (even though they can upgrade through updates), and then alphabetically as opposed to chromatically:

¿Better or worse?

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 09:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Neither of these three templates makes sense. Generations of Surface models are opaque and no one can say what generation this or that Surface model is for sure. Think of Surface Book. For me, it's not from the fourth generation, it is in first generation of its own. Segregation by Pro and non-Pro is also very loose, since Hub and Book does not fall into any of these categories, and place them in "Other" is not a perfect solution. Lastly, OS criteria is a most weak of all proposed, since most of Surface models work with Windows 8 or 10. TranslucentCloud (talk) 11:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
@TranslucentCloud: Well you may or may not have read this is the same way the template for Microsoft Lumia looks like with the original operating systems being the dividing category, just because a device is upgradable to another operating system doesn't mean that it doesn't belong to that generation as devices released with Windows 10 pre-installed have separate Windows 10-exclusive features like Windows Hello, also to say that it's the weakest one is a lousy argument based on that especially since in the Microsoft Surface article specifically at Microsoft Surface#Model comparison the pre-loaded operating system is listed as a means of dividing them.
Furthermore in the present template there doesn't seem to be any organisation other than alphabetic for Surface then Surface Pro and gets random with the Hub and Book.
As you can see here
The Lumia box divides them on their original operating system, I have a Nokia Lumia 930 that runs Windows 10 Mobile but that doesn't mean that that's the original operating system, in fact the Windows Tablets and 2-in-1s template divides them also according to original operating system and there the Microsoft Surface devices are all listed among those operating systems.
See template:Windows tablets for comparison.
Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 13:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
In fact I'd say that the operating system-based template is the strongest one because it's already the de facto standard for other Windows-based mobile devices.
Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 13:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Mobile phones is a whole different story. The OS-based template may be the strongest among all proposed, but it is definitely not the best. I think it is better to segregate Surface models on actual market positioning: moderate productivity and generally content consumption-oriented devices of the non-Pro line, Pro devices for the actual content creation (Surface Pro 1/2/3/4, Book) and the rest members of the family (Hub, Pen, whatever). This will make a lot more sense for the readers. TranslucentCloud (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Basically the second draft I suggested which T.C. turned down because it has an "other category" which a wide catch-all term that might actually end up confusing the WP:READERs as well, also I made a reference to template:Windows tablets which aren't exactly mobile telephones and are also grouped based on their pre-installed operating system, this is because Microsoft releases a Microsoft Surface device usually to showcase the power of the operating system it comes pre-loaded with, in fact the original Microsoft Surface was supposed to be "an example tablet P.C." for other manufacturers to imitate so to claim that the hardware and software stand independently from each other is not exactly true in the case of Microsoft Surface devices.
Sure, there are lot of templates which took OS installed as a "differentiator", and I agree with you, that upon release of some Surface models, they are used for some OS features showcasing, but still we should follow a common sense in defining segregation rules, not looking how it is done elsewhere. I think it is better consider actual appliance, not OS. OS is minor part in these devices, Surface Pro 4 and Surface Book both showcased Windows 10, but these are completely different devices with different usage patterns, and in most cases even for different audiences. TranslucentCloud (talk) 14:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Also in case it's not clear to everyone the reason I'm proposing the change of format is simply because of how disorganised the current template it, even Windows 10's template has a certain order.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@TranslucentCloud: ¿So basically the second draft only with a slight modification?

¿Like this? Honestly I don't like this one as there's no consistent element in the branding as the Microsoft Surface Book doesn't possess the "Pro" branding, and regarding "content creation", anyone can create content with almost any device, in the hands of a developer the regular Microsoft Surface is as much of a content creation device as the Microsoft Surface Pro, and a random consumer could also see both as a content consumption device, I think that the branding of "Pro" is already self-explanatory for the majority of the readers so I don't exactly see why the above template is any better than the Operating System-based one.

Honestly I just want to see this template be the Surface-specific version of the Windows Tablet P.C. template or the Nokia & Microsoft Lumia template and it doesn't have to be operating systems-based but at least have a basic form of organisation, I had to add "accessories" to the current template in order to add the Microsoft Surface Pen other w sise it would've appeared to have been randomly inserted among other offerings, anyhow any organisation is better than none, and by dividing it between Windows R.T. and "Full" P.C. Windows already shows this divide.

Post-Script

"Other" in the template could also be "Related" as the Microsoft Surface Hub barely qualifies as a Microsoft Surface device other than branding, and the Microsoft Surface Pen was a 3rd party accessory until Microsoft's acquisition of N-trig.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 10:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Also feel free to create a draft yourself.
Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 10:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@TranslucentCloud: Oké, I'll have to agree that the pre-loaded operating system is in fact not the main differentiator and that more consumer-advertised devices like the Microsoft Surface 3 runs the same operating system as the more "Power User"-advertised Microsoft Surface Pro 3 while historical Consumer-based/-targeted devices came pre-loaded with Windows R.T. or Windows R.T. 8.1 but that doesn't change that it's an easy way to differentiate them, templates are purely tools for navigation and honestly I'm not 100% against the idea of differentiating them by the Microsoft assigned (sub-)brand(ding).

In fact I can even see a Nokia & Microsoft Lumia template where they divide them as Nokia/Microsoft Lumia 4xx, Nokia/Microsoft Lumia 5xx, Nokia/Microsoft Lumia 6xx, Nokia/Microsoft Lumia 7xx, Nokia/Microsoft Lumia 8xx, Nokia/Microsoft Lumia 9xx, Nokia/Microsoft Lumia 1xxx, Nokia/Microsoft Lumia 13xx, Nokia/Microsoft Lumia Nokia/Microsoft Lumia 15xx, Nokia/Microsoft Lumia 2xxx, Etc. but the Microsoft Surface Book on its face can be seen as both a Microsoft Surface Pro as something completely else, the Microsoft Surface Hub is basically "a Microsoft Surface in name only".

And I'm not suggesting for the template to be at the bottom, just a reform in general as the current organisation of the template is alphabetical at the start and then goes fully random after the Microsoft Surface Pro 4 and honestly I'd like to hear what kind of organisation you would create as an alternative to the present layout.

¿Would this tickle your fancy?

I have no idea what to do with the [X], ¿Should the Microsoft Surface Book be among the Microsoft Surface Pro devices? The only reason the Hub is before the Book is because it was announced earlier which might or might not make sense. As of now I'd say that an operating systems based template is simply the most consistent one which is why it has been selected for other product families and computer form factors.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Also the whole reason why the operating systems template is more consistent is because both the Microsoft Surface Hub and the Microsoft Surface Book fit the "Windows 10" category while the Microsoft Surface Book falls outside of any present branding scheme and as we don't know if it's a new (Sub-)brand on its own (as in that it will be followed up by the Microsoft Surface Book 2 or the Microsoft Surface Book 5), or if it's a sub-sub-brand of the Microsoft Surface Pro as both of them are 2-in-1 hybrids as opposed to solely being Tablet P.C.'s or laptops, but the Microsoft Surface Book as been advertised as being both a Tablet P.C. as well as a laptop while the Microsoft Surface Pro line up more as 2-in-1's and most Microsoft Surface devices more as "more powerful" Tablet-P.C.'s and as the line between a Tablet P.C. and a laptop is fading with every new device every few months it would be hard to tell which one is which.
The Microsoft Surface Hub clearly doesn't fall within the rest of the Microsoft Surface family, it's not a Tablet-P.C. it's not a 2-in-1, it's not a laptop it's very clearly an interactive whiteboard that happens to run Windows 10 and the only thing it really has in common with the rest of the Microsoft Surface family is only its name, in fact even the engineering group that developed the Microsoft Surface Hub is the Perceptive Pixel Incorporated division which was acquired by Microsoft in 2012 similar to what happened to Nokia's mobile cell.-phone related assets and now operated within the same team as Panos Panay (again, just like what happened to Nokia's telephone division(s)), and what was originally called "Microsoft Surface" is now the Microsoft PixelSense which might deserve a special mention in the template as "related" (maybe).
Microsoft is so inconsistent with branding that resolving to dividing the template with brands might end up confusing some readers, this is less true with the Microsoft Surface family, but the only real consistent thing we can divide them with is the pre-loaded operating system.
Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
A minor thing I forgot to add As you suggested that the template should somehow divide them based on target audience operating systems also define them in that way, most "consumer-targeted" devices will be in the Windows RT/RT 8.1 category while most of the "Pro" devices and the Microsoft Surface 3 (which has more in common with most Microsoft Surface Pro devices than most Microsoft Surface devices) will also be in the Windows 8/8.1 category and the Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Microsoft Surface Book and Microsoft Surface Hub are all Windows 10-based devices even though the Microsoft Surface Hub has nothing else in common with the rest, and the Microsoft Surface Book is basically "a super-powered version" of the Microsoft Surface Pro.
Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
If you'd ask me, I'd go with something like that:
Of course, Consumer, Professional, Commercial words are what first came to my mind and these ones are not perfect, but hey, you got the idea. TranslucentCloud (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
@TranslucentCloud: Well it's an improvement over the current format and if no one would protest you could implement the changes, although I'm afraid that some certain editors would call the titles "weasel words" but at least there's a clear organisation in the format.
Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 07:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
What I offered is an example, so any modifications without "weasel words" are very welcome. TranslucentCloud (talk) 09:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
@TranslucentCloud: Well, it's basically my 2nd draft with only the Microsoft Surface Book moved under "Pro", so I could just rename the section "Surface Pro and Book" or "Surface Pro/Book" as they're all 2-in-1's (both a Tablet-P.C. and a Laptop at the same time), as opposed to the Tablet-P.C.-only Surface devices. If that's oké with you I'll modify the template, unless you'd like to invite 3rd party people to get a consensus, feel free to do so.
Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 09:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, the Surface 3, Surface Pro 3 and Surface Book all are 2-in-1's. TranslucentCloud (talk) 09:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
@TranslucentCloud: ¿Then you wish to go with your current design above?
Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 09:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
If it was my decision, I'd go with something like that. It is your initiative anyway, so go WP:BOLD and make changes which you think are right. TranslucentCloud (talk) 10:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
By the way, here is another attempt to intelligently organize our Surfaces:
TranslucentCloud (talk) 11:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


@TranslucentCloud: Honestly if I'd go bold I'd prefer the Operating systems-based one, but other users would probably only notice it after the change and since no third parties came here for consensus I'll implement these changes now.
After checking out the designs of these templates I really can't help it but to think that using Microsoft's own terms would somehow fall under WP:WEASEL WORDS and after previewing both I'm going for the O.S. template, feel free to revert and/or change it, if third parties wanted consensus they'll come afterwards or would've come before, anyhow.
Also there really isn't any clearly defined line between "mid-range" and "high-range" in the tech world as companies will try to market anything as anything, and the Microsoft Lumia 540 was advertised as a "mid-range" device in some markets, while "low-range" in others, just like the Nokia Lumia 530, or the Microsoft Lumia 640, and what constitutes "high-range" one year could become "mid-range" after merely 3 months. So far the software-based template has been the only one that is truly consistent, but then again it would be indistinguishable from the Windows tablet-P.C. template.
Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Okay, let's stick to your proposal and wait if anyone have anything to say. TranslucentCloud (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Erred with title...Edit

Excuse me, but I accidently erred with the title of the template so the talk page and version history became unavailable for a while.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 21:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

ReversionEdit

@WikIan: I hardly doubt that the earlier design is easier for navigation as it gives no secondary information other than the name, and to say that "the space below is too crowded as it is." is a fine example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT which is a bane of good editing. I am willing to talk it out first before reverting back, but nearly all other Windows-based hardware families and form factors have their own "bottom template(s)", and under various pages this is the only (legitimate) "bottom template" such as the Microsoft Surface Pen, and Microsoft Surface Hub articles.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you look at other examples. We use iPad as a template for these articles. There is a box for iPad generations on the side and at the bottom, one for Apple iOS based hardware. Please see WP:NAVBOX for more information, which clearly states that navboxes provide easier navigation between articles. At the bottom of the article, it is least useful. If you have a good reason as to why it should be moved down, I suggest you create a "Microsoft devices" template with all the Lumias, Bands, and Surfaces. Also change for the sake of change is not among Wikipedia's policies. WikIan -(talk) 05:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
@WikIan: I never stated that we should change it to "a bottom template" for the sake of change, but you do bring up a good point regarding the iPad case, and to have a bottom navigation box for "Microsoft Devices" or just a general "Microsoft hardware" would be counter-productive as it would have to include the Microsoft Kin, and various Lumia devices, but not all, and since Danger, Inc. published some T-Mobile HipTops while they were under Microsoft this could also become problematic, my largest beef with the old format was the utter lack of organisation and simply placing the Surface devices in "Pro" and "non-Pro" isn't self-explanatory as it omits certain aspects such as the fact that the Microsoft Surface 3 is actually a 2-in-1 and not (just) a Tablet-P.C. Also to claim that it's least useful at the bottom of the article goes against other navigational boxes such as the ones we already have for Windows Tablets, other Microsoft devices such as the Microsoft Lumia and Nokia 3-digit series. And the ability to differentiate between certain form-factors or categories is harder for "a side template" than it is for "a bottom template".
Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Microsoft Kin already utilizes the Template:Windows Mobile, so there is no need to replicate that functionality across a Microsoft Devices template which would handle 2012 devices and later. It could also handle the latest Lumia phones. WikIan -(talk) 03:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
@WikIan: ¿You do realise that Template:Windows Mobile is about the Windows C.E.-based Windows Mobile operating systems and devices that run on that, and as for adding those devices to that template as well as Lumia devices would not only be stupid but would defeat the purpose of these templates in the first place, as for the current template (let's stay on subject here) the current format simply doesn't organise anything, and as for templates solely being for navigation, sure, ¿but how can the readers see what device belongs where? There is absolutely no reason for the Microsoft Surface 3 to be in the same line as the rest of the "Sole Surface" devices, dividing them by operating system makes more sense, please see the variants above, even if you'd prefer it to be a "side-template" as opposed to a "bottom-template" it could still use some organisation, there really isn't any reason for the Microsoft Surface Hub to be above the Microsoft Surface Book as it was announced earlier, but if we'd look at it alphabetically it wouldn't make any sense, and the Microsoft Surface Book also came out earlier, and to state that it should only be mentioned before the Microsoft Surface Book simply because it was announced earlier wouldn't make sense as the Microsoft Surface 3 came after the Microsoft Surface Pro 3, and the whole way the template is as of now simply doesn't make much sense.
As of now the only reason I haven't reverted your edits is to reach consensus but you haven't made many arguments for the template to be on the side of the articles it's present in other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
It's not that I don't like it, it's that I don't believe that there should be any reason to change it. I stated the iPad articles as an example of having a side template, and the fact that there are not enough items to qualify it for what would be a collapsed bottom template. WP:IDONTLIKEIT can be thrown back at you saying "I just like it". The way I see it, it is fine how it is, and serves its purpose, as evidenced by other articles that utilize a side template. Take a look at WP:COHESION, a guideline that says articles should follow a well-established layout. WikIan -(talk) 01:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Adding PixelSense as relatedEdit

How about adding PixelSense as related product? Although it doesn't officially belong to the Surface brand anymore it might be more relevant to it again since the release of Surface Hub as now it's not a whole different appliance class anymore. -- 2A02:908:DF54:F540:500C:4EF8:5289:6C00 (talk) 02:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Return to "Surface models" page.