Talk:Microsoft Lumia/Archive 1

Rewrite
This article is in major need of a rewrite from scratch, reading as it does like a series of customer reviews on an amazon product page rather than an encyclopedia article.Star-one (talk) 06:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I second this; totally unreadable mess. The Nokia Lumia gives bunch of figures without any context, it does not mention how miserably are Lumias failing (compared to Symbian sales, before they killed it, its dropping market share and stock value etc.), and discusses at lengths disputed return rates. That reeks advertising. 89.177.89.174 (talk) 07:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Dropping market share? I don't see that is the case at all. The market share has been constantly climbing. Also I wouldn't call over 100% growth as "failing". Please keep it neutral and to the facts, and keep "fanboyism" out of it. This needs to be written with a neutral point of view. 217.155.39.91 (talk) 07:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

the best thing in n8 is the camara,,, nokia phones always been good on the top but nokia products fallen when microsoft bought nokia for $7.2 billion .... last thing i saw microsoft-nokia company released gay looking ugly phone with female lame name called (lumia) the system sucks but the camara is good — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.116.176.117 (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

So the "Lumia" name is not derived from the Finnish word "lumi", since the correct way for that to be true is that "Lumia" should be "Lunta". Stephen Elop said that Lumia is (means) light (which it is, latin for light). Just to get that cleared up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FinnishSushi (talk • contribs) 16:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Generations
I tend to think that second digit from the right is a generation number so Lumia 810 is a first generation smartphone and have to be moved to the first table.


 * Generations in a Lumia phone is decided by the first OS the phone ran on. Naming can be misleading. Lumia 810 is a T mobile variant of 820. likewise, there is 822 for Verizon. They are not available internationally and broadly speaking, the naming is consistent for international models. Dileep Kadavarath (talk) 09:56, 25 May 2014 (GMT)

Spanish meaning of lumia
It has been widely reported that lumia means "prostitute" in Spanish. While this is technically true, it is not material for defining the product in the lede section. It is a rather obscure meaning, as the definition of "prostitute" is "prostituta" or alternatively "puta", even in the self-proclaimed and much criticized "official" dictionary that has been sometimes cited. That's another story, but this dictionary has been criticized as archaic and Castilian dominated - probably why they have the word Lumia in it, which studies have shown over 99% of Spanish speakers do NOT recognize as meaning "prostitute". Since the statement has received so much coverage, it undoubtedly deserves mention in the article, however it should not be in the lede.
 * In Spanish, like in other languages, there is a few words for the same concept, for "prostitute" there is a few, and "lumia" is one of them even if it is note the most used.
 * RAE dictionary has a modern version (where lumia continues to exist) and that dictionary is accepted by 22 Spanish academies in 22 countries where Spanish language is official or very important language. So you can't negate the value of that OFFICIAL dictionary an its authority because Spanish is not like English: in Spanish there is a language authority with near 300 years of history actuating in language. Every cul person in Spanish language accepts that dictionary as reference.
 * In www.fastcompany.com link there is not any link to an study about your claim abot 99% Spanish speakes. And, if that study exist, by some respectable institution, it can say that x% Spanish speakers does not know that meaning, but the meaning exist in the same way and every cult Spanish speaker can look for it in the official dictionary. It may be a word not know in modern times in some countries but that word exist with that meaning and it is official.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuisGU (talk • contribs) 02:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Whether one dictionary is accepted as official or not, and whether the word means prostitute to any significant number of Spanish speakers at all (it doesn't) is not the point at all. What does matter is that this subject does not belong in the lede of the article.  This subject is notable because it has been widely reported, but it should not be the focus of what "Nokia Lumia series" is.Jacona (talk) 12:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Rename article to 'Lumia Smartphone Series' and restructure
Perhaps to avoid confusion the article should be renamed 'Lumia Smartphone Series' and the article can be subdivided into 'Nokia Lumia' and 'Microsoft Lumia' to better reflect the fact that the series started under one manufacturer and is continuing under another? Each subdivision can then detail the phones produced by each company - so 'Nokia Lumia' would be further subdivided into 1st Generation (wp 7) 2nd Generation (wp8) and 3rd Generation (wp 8.1) and 'Microsoft Lumia' would be further subdivided into 3rd Generation (wp 8.1) and then presumably in the future 4th Generation (windows 10 for phone) would be added and so forth. This will create a clear chronological progression to the article.
 * I agree, this product line should not be identified by the owner as it requires changing the name every time it changes owner.
 * Yeah, or alternatively split the article completely into ms lumia and nokia lumia, it's potentially misleading or confusing to have an article called microsoft lumia which then talks primarily about nokia phones... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.14.14 (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll have to disagree, brand-names change all the time but the product remains (largely) the same, the same people who worked under Nokia now work under Microsoft Mobile Oy, the same designers and it's essentially the same product. Products change ownership all the time and the history section covers the re-branding and the change in name, everything true about the Nokia Lumia Series is true about Microsoft Lumia the article's current structure is mostly fine, though I would probably need to create a section about Lumia firmware such as Lumia Amber, Lumia Black, Lumia Cyan, and Lumia Denim. --Namlong618 (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * By comparison this article reads "Nokia" 257 times, "Microsoft" 74 times, and "Lumia" 302 times (as of today - 04 D. 02 M. 2015 A.), so I might be inclined to agree with the fact that a Microsoft-branded page should make as much references to Nokia, but as the rebranding was recent there is little support to split the page in 2 over mere branding, but Microsoft has bought Nokia's devices and services division(s) & unit(s), so the current branding is fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namlong618 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Lumia Firmware table
I recently added a new section called "Firmware" and I'll admit that I didn't write it in a quite "encyclopedic style" so I suggest making a table out of it in the fashion of the Version History of every iteration of Windows Phone, here is my example:

{| class="wikitable collapsible " style="width:100%; font-size:90%;" ! style="background:silver; text-align:center;" colspan="3"| Lumia firmware ! style="background:#e9e9e9; width:8em; text-align:center;"|Update ! style="background:#e9e9e9; width:8em; text-align:center;"|Windows Phone version ! style="background:#e9e9e9; text-align:center;"|Changes ! style="background:silver; white-space:nowrap;"|
 * - style="vertical-align:top;"

Lumia Amber
! style="background:silver; white-space:nowrap;"|
 * Windows Phone 8 GDR2
 * [I'll insert features here later]
 * - style="vertical-align:top;"
 * - style="vertical-align:top;"

Lumia Black
! style="background:silver; white-space:nowrap;"|
 * Windows Phone 8 Update 3
 * [I'll insert features here later]
 * - style="vertical-align:top;"
 * - style="vertical-align:top;"

Lumia Cyan
! style="background:silver; white-space:nowrap;"|
 * Windows Phone 8.1
 * [I'll insert features here later]
 * - style="vertical-align:top;"
 * - style="vertical-align:top;"

Lumia Denim
! style="background:silver; white-space:nowrap;"|
 * Windows Phone 8.1 Update
 * [I'll insert features here later]
 * - style="vertical-align:top;"
 * - style="vertical-align:top;"
 * }

If anyone can tell me why I shouldn't make them template please red-light it, otherwise I'll go ahead and insert it, thank you for taking the time to read this. --Namlong618 (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Image of the Microsoft Lumia 535 is under review and was speedy deleted despite having proper rights.
So please don't remove the image until the final decision has been made, thank you. --Namlong618 (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Never mind it has been deleted, I've uploaded a replacement image, and later a batch more, I'll wait it out for a week and if so I'll replace it with this one.


 * Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Firmware update anchors
I've updated the firmware updates table to include Update-Color anchors for each update. I've also updated 's redirect pages for each update to point to the particular rows in the table instead of to the history section in general. For further Lumia firmwares, I'd ask that editors continue this pattern of creating anchors using the above form, so that articles for each phone model can directly point to the details of the update either directly or via one of the redirect pages. // coldacid (talk&#124;contrib) 20:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, we'll (I and the other "regular" editors of this page) anchor all future Microsoft Mobile Oy firmware updates on this page, thanks again for your contributions in advancing the quality of this page's navigation.
 * Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * No prob! // coldacid (talk&#124;contrib) 20:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * While on the topic of the updates table, any comments on reversing the table order to be in historical (chronological) order instead? - This is to bring it in-line with the same formatting as the Windows Phone version history page. NeoGeneric (talk) 05:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Regardless of related articles, version/update tables should follow established style guidelines. However, I just checked and there's nothing in the Computing MOS for this, so I'd suggest a review of other software articles that have such tables and determine which is more common, before changing the existing (reverse chronological) order. // coldacid (talk&#124;contrib) 12:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Windows Phone: a version/edition of Windows? Nope. Only Windows 10 Mobile.
It should be noted for anyone editing the infobox that Windows Phone is not necessarily an edition of Windows. Windows 10 Mobile certainly is, but 7.x and 8.x aren't. Windows Phone 7.x is a custom layer for Silverlight and XNA built on top of the Windows CE kernel. Windows 8.x is the same and with the WinRT API layer on top of the Windows NT kernel. The difference here is that Win10 Mobile so far appears to actually be Windows 10 but without the desktop and standard WinAPI layer available (nor Windows components relying on them); Windows Phone is a different platform built on different kernels for each version. // coldacid (talk&#124;contrib) 03:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand the confusion as you must confuse the Lumia line with the Lumia smartphone line but Windows is mentioned in the infobox because of the Nokia Lumia 2520 which runs Windows R.T. a version/an edition of Windows 8.X and not because of Windows 10, in the future the statement shall remain relevant as Windows 10 is built on (mostly) the same codebase as P.C. Windows 10, but the inclusion of Windows in the infobox has absolutely nothing to do with the relationship between Windows and Windows Phone and I think we're all aware of the compatibility between Windows Phone and Windows as kernels don't define operating systems, otherwise Windows Phone 7.X could be considered a version of Windows Mobile. No-one here believed that Windows Phone is a version of Windows which is self-evident, but all members of the Lumia line are included under which the Nokia Lumia 2520. I hope that you now understand why Windows is in the infobox and should not be removed.
 * Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: this is @Gadget Geek and not @Coldacid, but I write it here in case they're reading the talk page
 * While we're on the subject to quote Gadget Geek here "Started some tweaks to the infobox. Please add any relevant info, such as the ranges for other specs, such as price. Thanks!" as much of an inclusionist I am every individual Nokia/Microsoft Lumia article presents relevant information and the wide diversity would absolutely clutter the infobox, just look at the iPad or iPhone articles for comparison, the Nokia Lumia Series/Nokia LSeries/Microsoft Lumia range is simply far too diverse for this. The best we could do is split the page into a new Comparison of Lumia devices page which is simply already a section so the infobox only provides general information that all Lumia devices have in common with the notable exception of the manufacturer and the operating system (which if you'd exclude all Lumia phones on the Windows 10 technical preview is only 1 device on Windows and the rest on Windows Phone), but further information should only be included in the individual pages such as Nokia Lumia 920, Nokia Lumia 1020, Microsoft Lumia 535, Etc. as opposed to following the iPhone's style (which is cluttered and inefficient). I hope that Gadget Geek and other readers will now understand why the infobox is "minimalist" (something I personally hate, but even I must agree that this is necessary).
 * Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I erred when undoing 's edit by simply deleting everything in the parens from . Were Twinkle able to do individual line reverts instead, that would have been better because I didn't intend to suggest that Lumia devices only use Windows Phone as their operating system. I merely wanted to get rid of the incorrect data that stated that WP is an edition of Windows proper.
 * BTW you should use the template when posting a comment directed at someone, as that will also light up a notification for them whether or not they're watching the page where the comment is made. Likewise I believe the  template should also give a notice that they've been mentioned. It's a lot better than just typing out the username. (NB the notifications are only sent if the edit including the template's use includes the editor's signature via  ~) // coldacid (talk&#124;contrib) 21:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm used to the people that ping me to either come with childish comments or I forget a space in their user-name or incorrectly capitalize/uncapitalize, but anyhow I didn't see that S.G.G. added "(a version of Windows)" as I was asleep when that happened and didn't review the entire changelog so I didn't see that you were right, I simply thought that you overlooked the Nokia Lumia 2520 and assumed that "Microsoft Windows" is included because of Windows 10 which is a reason why it should be there in the future, but today it's there because of Windows R.T. as to why the form-factors also list Tablet-P.C.'s as opposed to merely mobile phones and phablets, but I think that you understand that, I simply missed the part where Windows Phone was declared "a version" of Windows (in fact Windows Phone is closer to Windows Embedded than it is to Windows), please excuse me for my hasted judgements and I should've observed the changelogs more, especially since by re-adding Microsoft Windows I saw less characters than when you removed them so I should've viewed the changelog, lessons to be learned by all participating parties, apparently.
 * Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 07:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No probs. // coldacid (talk&#124;contrib) 12:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Merging sections List of Lumia devices and Specifications and comparison of Lumia devices in Microsoft Lumia
Both the sections have information about same phones. These info could be merged.

Plus, is there a need to list generations of Lumia phones... No other mobile phone manufacturer page in wikipedia has such listing. I believe that confuses lot probably. Why not to list them acc to OS (installed) and branding only (ofcourse soreted by release date)

For eg

WP7
specification table including all devices irrespective off generation(with remaining info from other section

WP8
specification table including all devices irrespective off generation(with remaining info from other section

WP8.1
specification table including all devices irrespective off generation(with remaining info from other section

WP8.1
specification table including all devices irrespective off generation(with remaining info from other section

W10

 * Please ask that again on the talk page of Microsoft Lumia as I A) do not own anything here, if you wonder about edits please go to the talk pages and not my page as I share this I.P. address with other people, though still feel free to ask me anything, B) I don't often edit the tables other than software updates (which I made due to the awkward wording of the previous firmware section), and C) I will copy this message from my personal page and re-post it to the Microsoft Lumia talk page so you can get a proper response.


 * P.S. Collaboration is a better word in this context so I'll change it back, but feel free to state why it's "partnership" instead of "collaboration" because honestly I fail to see what's wrong with the wording, but your concise changes on the Microsoft Mobile page were very much welcome.


 * Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 11:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC) (Alternatively Namlong618)


 * In retro-spect "partnership" and "collaboration" wouldn't make much difference, and since it's "partnership" on the Windows Phone article as well I shan't change it.


 * Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 11:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC) (Alternatively Namlong618)

Difference between Microsoft Mobile and Microsoft Lumia.
Something that confuses a lot of editors (including myself) is that Microsoft sometimes refers to their division as Microsoft Lumia, though usually they'd go with either Microsoft Devices or even Microsoft Smartdevices they often call Lumia a division independent from Microsoft Mobile, which is why I wonder if we should use future developments regarding the Nokia 3-digit series for the Microsoft Mobile article, and note future developments of Microsoft Lumia here. --42.113.73.178 (talk) 05:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Microsoft Lumia logo
uploaded a new logo, but there doesn't seem to be any sources of where this logo comes from, as far as I can tell it's a fictional logo while the version uploaded by seems to still be the current logo displayed on various social media outlets like Twitter and the Facebook. Meanwhile the logos on related Wikipedia articles like Microsoft Surface and Microsoft HoloLens remain unchanged, so either I'm calling to a reversion or a justification. --Hoang the Hoangest (talk) 07:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I completely forgot to update the description on the image page! The image I uploaded was derived from another image on commons that featured the Lumia logo without "Microsoft" in it. This particular version of the logo does indeed officially exist as a logo for the Lumia brand, and isn't a fictional creation of mine. I thought this version of the logo would look better for the infobox than the previous one; solid color backgrounds for logos aren't exactly pretty on infoboxes, after all. Philip Terry Graham 08:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I understand, maybe it's odd to request this but could you update the images for Microsoft Surface and Microsoft HoloLens in a similar manner as you're right that it indeed looks better atop an infobox.
 * --Hoang the Hoangest (talk) 09:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The Surface line's actual logo is already on Commons, so I'll use that instead. As for Windows HoloLens, I'm not sure there's really a justification for the logo being where it is at the moment. There's really no purpose to having the logo in the article other than simply showing the logo for novelty's sake. There's not even an image of the device itself. I'd much rather wait until it's split into it's own article, like I think it should, before any more work should be done to the material, graphic and style-wise that is. Philip Terry Graham 10:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW the Google thing you sent me didn't work, though I should've probably stepped on the URL first I don't like to pollute my PC with Google (as a Bing-user), but anyhow when you claim that it officially exists you should actually point out to a Microsoft site or a social network site, so far I still haven't seen its use in the wild but I shan't change it back as logos change all the time anyhow. --Hoang the Hoangest (talk) 04:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:SPLIT (Comparison of Lumia smartphones)
Oké, I'm just going to lay this out here, I have half-heartedly suggested this several times ago but saw not much reason for it, but I think that we should better split the specifications into its own article, so far here are my arguments:


 * 1) There already is a table of available Nokia & Microsoft Lumia devices and an Indian I.P. user even removed this because (s)he thought that the specifications were sufficient enough to replace the other list, not thinking about the novice readers, though I reverted that, the point still stands that it's (kind of) duplicate information, though the sources in the first few lists are specifically about the device, which variants will be on the market, and their developmental names (code names).


 * 2) The (related) article Microsoft Mobile Oy was split for this reason exactly, it became too large, so first one user created one for no longer supported products and services by Microsoft Mobile Oy, and later this page was re-merged with the original Microsoft Mobile Oy and the entire software section was moved to an article regarding Microsoft software, the argument back then was that it simply was too large, and today Microsoft Lumia stands (as of the moment this comment was made ah) at 138.172 bytes.


 * 3) Having a separate article for specifications and the larger product series is normal, Google Nexus, Samsung Galaxy, and many others already have this, see: Google Nexus Vs. Comparison of Google Nexus smartphones & Comparison of Google Nexus tablets.


 * Counter-3) The previous might actually cause a problem here since the Nokia & Microsoft Lumia series only has one Tablet-P.C. and that's the Nokia Lumia 2520 which runs Microsoft's Windows R.T. and wouldn't fit in the tables, but still a "comparison of Lumia smartphones" article is still a more logical move than the present state of affairs.

Anyhow these are my arguments for a potential split, personally I like the present organisation of this article and would oppose a split if it actually would've been suggested, but most other Wikipedia articles already have the comparison tables/charts in different articles so it really wouldn't be out of place to do so here.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 09:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC) (alternatively known as Namlong[forgot the numbers, L.O.L.])


 * I have no objection to splitting the article, and I think it's a good idea considering that this seems to be the layout of other devices (like the Nexus line which you mentioned). I would also recommend keeping the list of devices on the Microsoft Lumia page, as a "central point" of reference. I would also suggest keeping the section within the current article but redirecting to the new comparison page (e.g.:)
 * Specification and comparison of Lumia devices
 * Cheers, NeoGeneric   💬  01:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Cheers, NeoGeneric   💬  01:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Fantasy logo
Some user uploaded a fake Lumia logo which has never been used by Microsoft ever and then as his/her only justification for using the logo on this page posting nothing but Google image search results and after this was pointed out stopped responding to the other conversationalist, whenever I see the marketing of Lumia devices I specifically see the name "Microsoft" used with it and the fantasy logo seems to have been created purely because it was the uploader's personal preference, ¿can someone please upload the correct logo that was used before it was replaced by the other user? Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Template and image
First of all I'd like to heavily advise against removing any content that were once true and no longer are, such as the fact that the Nokia Lumia 2520 runs Windows, and as there is still a discussion going on at Windows 10 Mobile whether or not Windows 10 Mobile is a version of Windows Phone or Windows 10 so completely replacing both with the latest version is misinformed at best and propaganda at worst (let's not forget that the Nokia Lumia 2520 won't update to Windows 10, nor would any device running Windows Phone 7.X)

Second of all the image actually makes a good representation of the different form factors of the Microsoft and Nokia Lumia family as well as represents both Nokia- and Microsoft-branded products, replacing them with a generic image of a Microsoft Lumia 950 (as beautiful as the device is) is actually counter-productive and would represent the product family less and would be more as a means of showing off "the latest and the greatest" as opposed to a more wider range of products in this product family.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS
Please explain how declines in Lumia sales fall under this policy as earlier sales reports are admitted to the article and the decline in sales is both relevant to the article and product in question as notable. Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 17:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Exactly what it says, and an encyclopedia does not report quarterly business results.  Scr ★ pIron IV 17:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Then why are sales reports listed in Microsoft Lumia and Sony Mobile it seems more like you have something personally against me then are actually interested in editing to improve the content of the article, sales and revenue are mentioned all over corporate websites and if you'd look at almost every other article like Samsung Galaxy S series this is the rule and not the exception, I will continue this conversation in Talk:Microsoft Lumia and copy the above conversation.


 * Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Sales figures
For some reason sales figures are in this article despite the fact that I was told by users that these weren't welcome, ¿is there some sort of double standard at play? Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Image of various Microsoft- and Nokia-branded Lumia smartphones and a phablet.
As several I.P. address users have the tendency to always remove the image from this article, let me explain why at present it's the best image to represent the Lumia line of smartphones, it's very simple it features both Nokia-branded and Microsoft-branded Lumia devices and it has devices from all price ranges as opposed to only a single Microsoft-branded device from the high-end price range or a single Nokia-branded device from the low-end price range, at present the image in the infobox is simply better, and please do not remove it without any justification, that's just vandalism.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Also I forgot to note that the majority of the time images get replaced on smartphone-related articles they often get replaced with non-free images or images that feature copyrighted content, a good example could be the images used in the Microsoft Lumia 950 article.
 * Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Lumia phones discontinued? Microsoft mobile shut down?
Microsoft in its press release has indirectly hinted at no more production of Lumia

Press Link: https://news.microsoft.com/2016/05/18/microsoft-selling-feature-phone-business-to-fih-mobile-ltd-and-hmd-global-oy/#sm.000vehd69191pcx2s132ivdcraq8t

THe piece in above link: "Microsoft will continue to develop Windows 10 Mobile and support Lumia phones such as the Lumia 650, Lumia 950 and Lumia 950 XL, and phones from OEM partners like Acer, Alcatel, HP, Trinity and VAIO."

Here, there is no reference to future production of Lumia, only development of Windows 10 mobile software and support of existing phones.

Now two things may happen

a. Microsoft will not release any more Lumia's but also will not declare that they have discontinued Lumia's. (Blackberry did same with Playbook tablet)

b. Microsoft will release phone branded by name other than Lumia (for eg Surface Phone, Xbox Phone etc..)

In both cases, Lumia stands discontinued. Also Microsoft Mobile stands closed.(Microsoft Surface remains in business)

Question: Should the articles Microsoft Mobile and Microsoft Lumia be updated to include 'Lumia discontinuation' now?

Please provide views on the above question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RumGadTrain (talk • contribs) 06:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, we should not currently list the Lumia line as discontinued, not until an official statement from Microsoft to that effect.
 * I'm aware that multiple secondary sources have reported on Lumia production winding down and speculating about what this means for the brand as a whole, and I'm not opposed to including that information somewhere in the article, but the lede and infobox should reflect the current official status, which is not yet "discontinued". At best we can say something like "on hold" or "production halted". In fact, unless someone opposes, I propose changing the status in infobox to one of those. Indrek (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi.


 * As long as there is no law mandating an official announcement of discontinuation, it might as well never come. Microsoft won't announce something unless there is something to gain from that announcement.


 * That said, secondary sources always trump primary sources, not the other way around.


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * A company announcing the discontinuation of a product line is pretty standard practice. Certainly not "unprecedented" or "impossible", as you suggest in your edit summaries. Also, although I never said it had to be a primary source, such sources are perfectly fine for claims about themselves (e.g. a Microsoft-published source saying Microsoft has discontinued the Lumia line). Sure, secondary sources are preferable, but as far as I can see, the secondary sources are merely saying that production of current Lumia phones has been wound down, and that this might mean no new phones are forthcoming. From the article currently used as source in the infobox: "Microsoft is believed to be planning to discontinue the Lumia brand in December". I don't think that's enough to claim the Lumia brand as definitively discontinued; that's a pretty exceptional claim. Indrek (talk) 15:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * So, since the article has been edit protected for a few days, maybe we can get the discussion here going again? Pinging as recent contributors. Indrek (talk) 11:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * My somewhat uneducated view is that the sources that have been provided thus far are weak and rely too much on supposition, based fundamentally on whether or not Microsoft's online store actually has stock of items. I'm not of the opinion that something showing as "Out of Stock" is a reliable indicator of its status overall - to give a practical example, I tried purchasing a Lego Mindstorms EV3 at Christmas - many retailers in the UK were showing this as "Out of Stock", but, it wasn't discontinued… there was simply stock issues. The likelihood of the same applying in the Microsoft scenario is remote, but, supposition does no one any favours.
 * I do very much agree that a secondary source would be beneficial, and, indeed, agrees with encyclopaedic thinking, but, the sources thus far are more tabloid than anything else (and, in the case of one of the most recent sources, it actually just cited back to one of the original ones in a somewhat circular manner).
 * According to Microsoft Investor Relations website, their next earnings release is due later on this month, so, a more definitive answer is likely to be forthcoming in the media around that time. Until then, however, I think that until a source actually reports something credible this one is very much up for debate, and, at most, it could be classed as "assumed discontinued". Demonuk (talk) 05:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * According to Microsoft Investor Relations website, their next earnings release is due later on this month, so, a more definitive answer is likely to be forthcoming in the media around that time. Until then, however, I think that until a source actually reports something credible this one is very much up for debate, and, at most, it could be classed as "assumed discontinued". Demonuk (talk) 05:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * According to Microsoft Investor Relations website, their next earnings release is due later on this month, so, a more definitive answer is likely to be forthcoming in the media around that time. Until then, however, I think that until a source actually reports something credible this one is very much up for debate, and, at most, it could be classed as "assumed discontinued". Demonuk (talk) 05:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * This is pretty much my position as well - all sources provided so far focus on availability of current models and assume from there that no future models will be produced (that it's an assumption is very much made clear in the wording they use). I firmly believe we should wait until something more substantial (ideally an official statement by Microsoft) emerges. Until then, using past tense and definitively claiming the Lumia line as discontinued seems inappropriate. Indrek (talk) 12:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, Lumias (specifically the 550, 950 and 950 XL) are now back in stock in Microsoft's US store:.
 * As such, I'm inclined to remove the two mentions of what now appears to have been but a temporary period of unavailability from the article. Or we can wait a bit and see if they remain in stock. Thoughts? Indrek (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * As there have been no responses, I decided to be WP:BOLD and go ahead with my proposed edits. I did leave one mention of the temporary US unavailability, though frankly I'm not sure if being out of stock for a short while is noteworthy. Indrek (talk) 06:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)