Talk:Nokia Lumia 800

WP:OR and WP:NPOV
These edits  have issues related to synthesis and fails WP:NPOV. The reference says about "anonymous comments" while this has been paraphrased as "anonymous reviews" and moreover these comments were made on a single review, by some site financial site, so "astroturfing campaigns" is not accurate. Moreover WP:NPOV states "Accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views", "Avoid stating opinions as facts", "Prefer non-judgmental language" (WP:YESPOV) and the edit fails these as well. Per NPOV ( "Accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views"), its important to mention that the reviewer didn't use the phone and violated his own site policy by revealing the IP addresses. Also the reference talks about "unwelcome edits to Wikipedia" not about "conduct astroturfing editions to Wikipedia" which is WP:OR and failed verificaiton. I will be fixing these, If any editor has problems, pls discuss here. Thanks. --TheMandarin (talk) 03:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with removing the section. Mdwh (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with you, the "Criticism" section did not have anything to do with the phone, but about two "anonymous comments" and some non-notable sites' privacy policy violation. This section was clearly a WP:COATRACK. --TheMandarin (talk) 04:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Citing sources & External links
Would the person who keeps adding non-authoritative links please read the above two links and desist from further additions. The site(s) are clearly non-authoritative and clearly someone's opinion. It you wish to continue this discussion please bring the matter up at my talk page. — billinghurst  sDrewth  11:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Need to add redirect from "Lumia 800"
Abhishikt (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

SOPA/ACTA?
Shouldn't this be removed? I mean first of all this is not Lumia 800 specific but WP Mango specific (will be fixed in Tango) and this is not mentioned for other devices.

Furthermore there is no source that this has anything to do with SOPA or ACTA and in my opinion there is no reason to belive it has.88.78.123.155 (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll try to have a look on this. If there is no notable sources to this claim, it can be removed or rephrased.--Caygill (talk) 09:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I vote for the removal of this part completely. This is pointless as a specific defect in Lumia 800's case, as it spans ALL WPs. Also, the overall article sounds pretty biased, and raw. harsh_manutd (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well the whole section is sourced by an anonymous Youtube video and a private tweet. Way to go..!--Caygill (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

NPOV March 2012
This article has a poor structure, but more so, it's unbalanced and is emphasizing negative rant. Wikipedia is not a platform for iPhone/Android/WP rivalry. Wikipedia is neither a platform to went frustration after the layoffs of all the Nokia's Symbian developers. Keep it neutral and to the point. --Caygill (talk) 09:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I will take this article to a sandbox and try to improve it. There is room for any reported issues as with all mobile phones, but I would like to expand things the model and Nokia -specific services and features. In short, describing the unique flavor of the Windows Phone -ecosystem Nokia brings with this model. Another aspect would be cleaning out the diary like appearance, not every fragment of weekly articles are notable in the bigger picture and longer run.--Caygill (talk) 09:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. One of the dangers is also that of cherry picking opinions in the press - particularly a problem if we don't just cover reviews, but any blog where someone one in the press has an opinion (hence my latest edit). How do we handle this with other phone articles? My general impression that even simply picking the positive reviews isn't that much a problem (in that, if a phone is crap, you would have trouble finding any notable positive reviews, and it avoids the POV/OR problems of trying to create pick a balanced range of opinions) - but as soon as you start sticking in some random blog where someone doesn't like this, and this isn't done for other phone articles, it creates a misleading impression. I'm also particularly suspicious of polarised blogs where the person is just doing Nokia Lumia 800 vs IPhone 4, rather than a reviewer comparing to a range of phones on the market. (I speak as some who loves Symbian, and would prefer Android over WP as a future phone - but as you say, this is not a place for people to grind their anti-Nokia/WP axe.) Mdwh (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Is Lumia manufactured in China or in Salo, Finland?? False facts, overinterpretation or what?.
I have reverted your latest edit from Nokia Lumia 800. It seems you have no intention on improving the article, instead only adding negative bias and cherry picking things of your own point of view. Your ALL edits concern Nokia's two latest mobile phone systems. In context of the N9 (Meamo/Linux), you defend the device, and with the Windows Phone -based Lumia -devices you do the opposite. Please also register an account, so your IP won't suspected as a sockpuppet.

--Caygill (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You have reverted changes which eliminates unproved by citated sources thesis, whats more this thesis are false concerning wide known facts. Provide source with facts, and actual facts, what you are doing is overinterpreting towards to certtain point of view by you. What you did is nothing to do with objectivity or neutral point of view. Think it over, or provide verifiable sources. When citated just in previous verse source says: "(...) We already knew that Lumia 800 manufacturing was outsourced to Compal, Niklas Savander who is a Executive Vice President of the Markets in Nokia seems to say that the Lumia 800 will continue to be made by Compal. Lumia was 800 Compals doing, mostly because we wanted to get out of the phone quickly and they had the experience of Qualcomm’s chips. We’ve always had a variable number of contract manufacturers, which are to ease the load, and also bring special expertise. – Savander (...)" dated Feb 19, 2012 then how you can deny it is fact, or you are more powerfull where it is manufactured then Nokia?? Statement of Executive Vice President of the Markets in Nokia is worthless in confrontation to some photos dated November 18, 2011? So from gone year? Has time stoped? Whats more those photos and writtings under them does not says what can be trated as exact proof for your thesis, read it carefully. It shows "(...) exclusive access to the factory in Salo for a sneak-peak of what goes on behind the scenes when launching a phone like the Nokia Lumia 800 (...)". Note: LAUNCHING which is first of all logistics. Yes below it says "Row upon row of the Nokia Lumia 800 being produced, at various stages." and "(...) checks (...)" and "(...)Configuring(...)" and "(...) Tested, boxed and getting ready for shipment (...)" - so still this post manufacturing, however still prodution. Anyway, still this is outdated concerning citated above source, as Nokia decided "to uotsorce" all to Compal in China. You can find below under photos comments from peple which confirms this and pointing: "(...) You forgot to add that Nokia stops manufacturing phones in Finland early next year. Most of the people in the pictures will loose their jobs and remaining will just place phones in localized sales boxes. Then again, who cares where generic hardware by Microsoft OEMs is made? All of it is made in Chinese sweat shops. Logical for this new Nokia to move into that direction as well.(...)" and "(...)Well that has really been the case for years already. They put the parts together while most of the manufacturing will be made elsewhere. Also it’s around 250 that will lose jobs in Salo from the +1600 workers there now.(...)" and "(...) No, it hasn’t been the case for years. They have still been manufacturing phones from components. They are now stopping the manufacturing all together completly. No more manufacturing. Only packaging of finished products.(...)" - please read carefully last. And once again, Nokia's vice statemat - for me this is proof: Lumia are manufactured in China by Compal. Can you provide proof for oposite thesis? However it can be tested and inpacked in Finland still it is manufactured in China. Wikipedia should not provide false facts IMHO. Can you provide citation that confirms your thesis please? And especially before you accuse anybody for anything dirty? Also I think you can edit what you reverted, do you think now this is not clean and clear as you have edited and reverted? By edit I don't men to revert but to improve to obtain true and commonly acceptable point and common sence. My claim is that now this is false or lied, just misinforming reader - Wikipedia shouldn't lies. 77.254.134.147 (talk) 11:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to ask, but are you using Google translate or similar, as I have hard to understand the semantics of your text? First of all, you live in Poland and I live in Finland. I read daily about Nokia, which is a major contributor to the country's economy. Nokia is so much more than one device model that to whole issue is out of context. Producing a phone is a long value chain, which both start and ends in Finland. Salo is NOT closing, neither is any other major Nokia unit in Finland. If you have reputable sources stating otherwise, then present them. It doesn't work the other way around; no-one is required to produce sources to prove any rumors wrong. More about Nokia: it's very much true it that many Symbian developers lost their jobs. Same goes probably with the Maemo people. If you are one of them, I fully understand your POV, and I'm very sorry. However, none of this is relevant to this article. Please do something to improve the article! Have a critical look at the iPhone 4s -article, and if you still feel like spending all your energy on debating one sentence, then you are free to do so. Please also have look on the origin of the Template:Infobox_mobile_phone - the manufacturer refers to the brand, not the contractor.--Caygill (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The more your fortess in NOT under attack the more you defend it. There is source citated and stated production is outsorced to China. You haven't provided any source, verifyable source. Place where you live, your approach to Symbian, Memo or whatanything else is not any source. Neither a source, nor discussed subject. If you are against Microsoft decisions you are just to try to live with them. Still you haven't improved anything besides some emotions - this is one thing, but propagating info making impression that product is from somwhere else then citated source and label on product saying "made in China" in shops all over Europe is just not quite fair to the others. I have put you in writting above what source is saying. I keep asking and talkin here as I respect opponents, and looking for verified facts. And repacking is still not a production. Sypermarkets all over the world repack fresh food like fruits but they are not producing anything, however thay are adding value in chain. In sevice centers all over the World after complaints or damages Nokia's phones are flashed with software, configured, tested, packed and ready to go. But this is not enough to say they are produced in services all over the world. Wikipedia is not a palce for making impressions but for verifiable facts. Provide source or just stop it please. Production is a chain, but manufacturing part of it was outsorced to China, you need just to accept consequences of this and that Nokia is cooperating with Microsoft, as it is. Currently source in article says so. You haven't confirmed anything, I am sorry.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.254.134.147 (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)77.254.134.147 (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * My Polish friend, PLEASE STOP already! Register an account and do something productive instead. Your very own phone's assembly (what ever it might be) is with 99% certainty done not in Poland, not in the USA, not in Finland, but in China! If stating CHINA in context with Lumia 800 (and no other mobile device on Wikipedia) makes you happy, please edit the article further, and make an own section for it. --Caygill (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * To make it really simple for you: Lumia 800 has been developed and designed by Nokia in Finland. That means every component, every screw, every bit of software development upon the Windows Phone platform has been designed or specified by Nokia. It is NOT NOTABLE that the first shipment of devices are assembled by a contractor in China. The exact same goes with the majority of mobile devices, including Apple's iPhone.--Caygill (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Then where and why you have such a problem? And I doubt in one thing: every bit of software development with the Windows Phone seems to me made by Microsoft or related, but I can be wrong. And you are wrong: not all phones are manufactured in China. You are free to improve iPhones articles or any other devices and nothing can stop you. 77.254.134.147 (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused by what's there at the moment - I mean, it may be factually correct now, but I'm wondering why it's notable or relevant, especially for the lead? Most articles we don't even mention where a product is made - and I fear a POV attempt of "They outsourced it!". I think the paragraph should just be removed. Mdwh (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Just trying to calm down an edit war. I fully agree with you Mdwh. We've come a long way now, and perhaps the paragraph can soon be removed. --Caygill (talk) 10:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Need for a template-like structure ?
I copy a peer-review comment from iPhone 4s talkpage. I find it very good and something one could strive for on or mobile phone articles:

Comments from Jappalang

I envision such an article about a device to tell me:


 * What is the product?
 * Features


 * What are its features/capabilities?
 * Any unique ones?


 * Development/production


 * How was it conceived?
 * Where was it manufactured and for how much?
 * What was its performance/reliability?


 * Release


 * How many did it sell?
 * What awards did it receive?


 * Impact


 * How did society/consumers receive it?
 * What was its impact on the company?
 * What was its impact on the industry?

This article failed to do so for me. Information is scattered here and there and interrupted by spiels of irrelevant information. The Impact section has nothing about the impact of the device at all. I do not need a price/contract/service provider guide. This sort of things are ephemeral and trivial unless the phone only works with one service provider out of several (as per the first iPhone in the US for a time). Thus the Availability section is entirely unencyclopaedic in my opinion.


 * The piecemeal sentences (several paragraphs simply comprise a single sentence) in this article does not reach the standard of prose requested for Featured Articles. Furthermore, sentences like "Its not clear what the impact of Siri speaking in public will be, but it does not have to speak out loud and can be used with headphones" have grammatical errors ("Its" is the possessive form of "it"; I doubt it is Siri that "[has] to speak out loud") and an unencyclopaedic tone (the intent is to use the contraction "it's", which is not encyclopaedic; neither is the proposition of stating "We do not know what the item is like, but ..."). In short, heavy copy-editing is required to phrase the sentences properly and to cast them in an encyclopaedic light (just reporting the facts).


 * There are uncited items like "One unique aspect was that the whole management team of several people took turns discussing the new products" (frankly, that is not unique at all), the Design section, and various other sentences in the following sections.


 * This ultimately is supposed to be an article about a common handheld electronic device, almost integral to everyone's life. Hence, its contents are supposed to be accessible to everyone who wants to learn more about it. It is not a DNA centrifuge nor a neutrino generator. It does not need to be phrased thoroughly in "tech speak" or full of little stuff that makes the technically-inclined happy but confuses the majority of the readers.


 * In my opinion, the lede is already an overwhelming mass of "tech speak", as illustrated by the first sentence itself—"The iPhone 4S is a touchscreen slate smartphone developed by Apple Inc." While most likely know of touchscreen, what the heck is a "slate smartphone"? The "smartphone" is a marketing jargon and serves nothing except to obfuscate ("so the phone can think?"). Much more can be done with the simpler "The iPhone 4S is a mobile phone with a touchscreen interface. It was developed by Apple Inc and released to the public in October 2011." Readers readily comprehend what this sentence is saying without having to deal with technical jargon. Wiki-linking is no justification. Forcing readers to go to some other article to learn what a term means and losing them there (either because the article is more interesting or they gave up because it is the same mess of technical confusion) is a disservice to both the readers and the project. Wiki-links are supposed to provide extra information for the readers, not as links of convenience for article builders. Either cast the technical terms into context (such that the meaning can be easily guessed at) or provide a brief explanation of the term. Above all, write in a clear and concise manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caygill (talk • contribs) 10:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 March 2012
amend the wording 'would built' with 'would be built'

Goldenowl (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Done Celestra (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Need for permanent semi-protection?
It seems we have again the same 2-3 socket puppets returning to cause havoc. It's feels really pointless to spend ones time on Wikipedia, when a few anonymous IP's can have their way with trolling.--Caygill (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Upgradeability to Windows 8
I've removed the section on whether or not the phone can update to Windows 8, as it is pure conjecture at this point. There is no reliable source saying either way. A quick web search will reveal a dozen articles saying either way is possible. http://asia.cnet.com/ask/will-current-windows-phone-7-handsets-get-the-apollo-upgrade-62214629.htm Siah1214 (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The paragraph had been properly referenced. Remember that Wikipedia should be a collection of relevant and properly referenced facts. Please avoid WP:NOR. --Enemenemu (talk) 09:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Deutsche Telekom officially confirmed that all of the Lumia phones up to the 900 cannot be updated to WP8. Reference has been added. --Enemenemu (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Noise cancellation hardware
The manufacturer's specs do not boast active noise cancellation, they only list "2 microphones". However, this web site does, supposedly measuring it. What do you think? --Jerome Potts (talk) 00:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Phone connector (audio)?
CTIA or OMTP? --Manorainjan (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Droid 2