Talk:Symbian/Archive 1

Comment

• I came here looking for information on Symbian OS, and the company that produced it, but I guess no one's made a page about it. Still, someone might want to take what's currently up down, because you know someone is going to use this as "yet another example" about how you "can't trust Wikipedia."

• Just started today. More to come in the next days/weeks/months/years :D

-- Julien Fourgeaud (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Together, we will ...", hmm...how about writing in a more impersonal way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.30.199.40 (talk) 02:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• "The Symbian platform is open source software based on...". "platform" and "software" are two highly general terms that can apply to many things. A more accurate description is needed, like "Symbian is an operating system for .... based on ...".

ok, someone fixed this :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.30.199.40 (talk) 04:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• This article is like a pamphlet, brochure, propaganda, spam...etc. Is FULL of claims about the benefits, using words like "proven", "efficient", "secure", "guaranteed"...while providing no citations. Some phrases are even about what it will do in the future...but giving absolute no reason or explanation why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.30.199.40 (talk) 03:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Hmm, how does this fit with what we have in the existing Symbian Foundation article, out of interest? It seems incongruous, given that they've said that "Symbian" is the main brand for everything, and "Symbian Foundation" is supposedly only going to be used for legal matters (correct me on that). We duplicate some of the content there, too...

VMlemon (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Symbian OS is an operating system that was produced by Symbian Software Ltd until late 2008, it got up to Symbian OS v9.5. A number of software platforms were built on top of Symbian OS - S60 (Nokia), UIQ (used by Sony Ericsson, Motorola, Samsung), MOAP (used by NTT Docomo).

In late 2008 Nokia acquired Symbian Software Ltd and gifted all of the software for Symbian OS and S60 platform to the Symbian Foundation, an organisation set up to maintain the software as open source. The new platform is called the Symbian platform. So Symbian OS refers to the legacy operating system. Symbian has historically been used for Symbian Ltd, and the Symbian platform.

I wouldn't merge the two topics, but I would take much of the useful material across —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.80.31 (talk) 08:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Where are you getting this information? I've added a {{fact}} template to the article. Brian Reading (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• I apologize for the "style", I was not aware of all the "rules" of Wikipedia. I will do my best to rewrite as much of the text as possible, let it be regarding the "neutrality" or the "Copyright violation"--Julien Fourgeaud (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• I think this article should be folded into the article on Symbian. It's a confusing to refer to Symbian OS in terms of the Symbian Foundation, which is the implication. Symbian OS is now part of the Symbian Platform (along with S60, UIQ and MOAP(S) and it makes sense to reflect that by a merge. At the same time, the article needs to be improved & updated (as per comments here). August 5th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.144.219.77 (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violation

• Who marked this article for speedy deletion? It shouldn't be deleted since it's not violating any copyrights. -- 82.128.210.17 (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• While I didn't mark the page for deletion, broad swathes of the page have been copied from the Symbian.org FAQ, including the introduction and the Developers subsection. This is against Wikipedia policy, and the text must be rewritten or removed. If there is insufficient non-copyrighted information, the page will probably be deleted. Rimmington01 (talk) 11:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• How does it work when someone from the Foundation would be writing the introduction? Would it go against Wikipedia policy? --Julien Fourgeaud (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • They are allowed to do it but should heed WP:COI. For the moment, I have declined the speedy deletion request and removed what was left of copyrighted material. Please do not readd anything from the Symbian homepage but only text you wrote yourself. Regards SoWhy 20:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I understand. However, I do not see why you deleted the table of supported devices. These were facts, these devices are supported by the platform. --86.209.175.73 (talk) 23:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

re-Merge of previously Merged Symbian articles

This is just silly. Symbian OS and Symbian are not different products. This was a mere marketing trick, shortering OS name. It makes not sense having 2 separate articles or marking Symbian OS as "historic". Netrat (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I couldn't find any information about the difference between Symbian OS and Symbian. Brian Reading (talk) 05:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. There should not be two articles about the Symbian operating system. Google calls its platform 'Android', however the Wikipedia article is called 'Android (Operating system)'. What's wrong with Symbian being the same (ie, Symbian OS)? The two articles should be immediately merged into the existing older article. This separation has been going on too long, and is causing confusion among readers.--Lester 00:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see Symbian OS moved to a page called History of Symbian, to explain its proprietary past, and then keep this page, Symbian because it is the existing name. May I request for a wiki expert to make this so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.100.144 (talk) 22:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Where the hell are you getting this info? Did you miss our conversation??? Brian Reading (talk) 08:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. The reason is Symbian Ltd. never owned the MOAP, UIQ, and S60 assets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.105.2 (talk) 18:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I say they are different, Symbian, although uses Symbian OS, S60 and others as it's base, is a different platform, different developer, different numbering, open source vs. Symbian OS' proprietary. I say keep them separate but put a For Template in the top or some other similar one. IJK_Principle (talk) 18:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Another argument would be the 2 N-Gage articles - 1 about the old phone, the other about the service. They both are called simply N-Gage, however they have few things in common apart from the name and that both deal with video games. You don't see people complaining about the need to merge those 2 articles, so why should these two be merged? IJK_Principle (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

this article is not about Symbian Ltd., there is a separate article for that entity and its activities
this article is about the SymbianOS with previously proprietary plug-ins, components, and frameworks in the process of opening its source to the wider community, and the strategy that the Symbian community has adopted is to integrate these previously disparate sources (originally from different companies) and merge them into a single harmonious development, thus, Symbian OS has evolved into the Symbian platform, not entirely different but an expansion of the original idea and development process —in fact there has been a transition period from Symbian 9.1 to 9.x to the first integrated Symbian platform with the ultimate goal of most components opensourced

I therefore strongly support the MERGE in favor of the more developed article with the complete Symbian history, the shorter recently revived article should be included in the latest development section of the main article, in fact: it has been redirected to the main article several times but was again revived in July 2009. I will draft a section with the merged content immediately. —-— .:Seth_Nimbosa:. (talk • contribs) 04:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I too see the separation as a marketing ploy and an attempt to separate from past mistakes (i.E. missing the touch screen revolution or choosing S60 over UIQ) and i am fully in favour of merging the articles and have an administrator lock the Symbian platform page as a redirect to symbian os.--Krischik ^T 08:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Not a marketing ploy, but sincerely reflecting the big organizational change and from an internal perspective the existence of two articles is justified. But here in Wikipedia we tend to look from an outside perspective at things, so I support the merge as long as there is a separate history article Andries (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I proposed to rename Symbian OS to History of Symbian and to keep Symbian platform as the main article where all info about the current OS should be treated. Now some is at Symbian platform and some is at Symbian OS. It is not getting better: some recent edits should have been made at Symbian platform but are made at Symbian OS and vice versa. Andries (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources

This is a question for the Symbian Wikipedia community. Do you consider allaboutsymbian.com to be a WP:Reliable source? It looks okay to me (apart from some annoying floating pop-up adverts), but additional opinions are always helpful. Marasmusine (talk) 10:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Misleading redirection.

There is not a single Symbian platform device outbut dozens of Symbian OS devices I don^t think it is appropriate to redirect to the smaller article.

--Krischik ^T 07:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Not a disambig.

This term is just the headword for a family of related concepts. It should not be a disambiguation page at all. bd2412 T 16:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you suggest to do with page? Andries (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Either turn it into an outline of the topic incorporating the existing links, or redirect it to Symbian platform, which would seem to be a natural consequence of your proposal above. It is not properly a disambig page, since it does not distinguish between unrelated or tenuously related topics which happen to share the same name. bd2412 T 16:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

May be that is a good idea, but only after Symbian OS has been converted to History of Symbian, and Symbian platform has been reworked but that is some work and I cannnot do it quickly due to time constraints. Andries (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Briefly de-disambiguated for now. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I prefer to have this article re-directed to Symbian platform as soon as possible i.e. as soon as the other articles have been reworked. Now it bothers people with a history that most people are not interested in. Andries (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Most readers that enter "Symbian" in the search box are looking for information on Symbian platform. The page as it stands now just looks like a really cheap underdeveloped article for such a notable topic. I think this page is most useful to readers by being a (pseudo)-disambiguation page as it was before, but if we're that concerned with definitions then this page really should redirect to Symbian platform. -- œ^™ 18:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this page should redirect to Symbian platform. This should be done quickly and if nobody has time and interest to rewrite the set of article before re-directing then I suggest we redirect anyway, because the current organization is unacceptable to me. Andries (talk) 11:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I will do it. -- Tom Jenkins ^(reply) 11:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Another option could be calling it a WP:Set index article. -- œ^™ 18:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

What do we mean by 'current'?

What does 'current' mean? SE do not play to release any more Symbian phones. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see "current" on the page. We could always add an "as of" statement. bd2412 T 16:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Opps sorry, I meant the template. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)