Talk:Nokia phones beta labs

Images
Noting the removal of images... thumb|right|250px|Beta Labs homepage prior to Microsoft moving it to UserVoice thumb|left|the Beta Labs logo under [[Nokia]]

Note that images are usually moved to the History section otherwise they'll be deleted while they're still relevant to the content, think of the Nokia Lumia logo on the Microsoft Lumia page or the older Microsoft Hotmail logo's on the Outlook dot com page. Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 10:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Non-free images are not permitted to be used on talk pages. --B (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

¿Redundant information?
I don't want this to escalate into a useless edit war, so let's try to solve this in a civil manner. I fail to see how these informative images are redundant and how the organization of this page is somehow repeated iformation.

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

Please stop deleting the images
they serve this article for a purpose and images like these are common on Wikipedia

"If there are no problems with the current version, and it meets the non-free content criteria, please delete the previous version(s) on March 30, 2015 (seven days after March 23, 2015, when this template was added)." these ones even meet the criteria for non-free images, so please stop removing them, this article should've never been renamed to Lumia Beta Apps in the first place, this should've served for the historic Nokia Beta Labs site as the Microsoft Mobile page contains most of the latest information on the Lumia Beta Apps. It serves absolutely no-one to remove encyclopedic content and the only reason these images are nominated for deletion is because someone keeps removing them from the article, so it's practically a vicious cycle where these images are declared to be worthy of keeping, someone removes them again, a bot will say that it's not used in any articles and should be deleted, then they get back again, and the user who previously removed them will now remove them with the justification that they're nominated for deletion, please stop removing these images, I think that it's better to just rename this article "Nokia Beta Labs" and let the Microsoft stuff which barely is its own website be at Microsoft Mobile. --86.81.201.94 (talk) 07:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Rename the article back to Nokia Beta Labs
move all Microsoft information to Microsoft Mobile Oy

Or maybe a merger, but there is practically no information on the UserVoice site which probably wouldn't qualify as Wikipedia literally has no information for any other UserVoice sites include those for bigger ones, think Microsoft Windows, Windows Phone, Etc. while Nokia Beta Apps was an actual separate website, Lumia Beta Apps isn't even a full migration as most was archived in the M.S.D.N. and this site merely serves as a place-holder, the article name-change was also done without consensus, and the Microsoft Mobile article has more information about the latest applications than this article, in fact changing its name back to Nokia Beta Labs would make more sense because A) the slogan is incorrect, B) the screenshot, and logo would make sense as a part of the Nokia Beta Labs article, but are constantly deleted because of the renamed article, C) the date of launch also doesn't make sense as the article is about a website while the L.B.A. are merely a collection of pages on UserVoice, and D) there is literally no information on the Lumia Beta Apps on this site, only that the Nokia Beta Apps were renamed, but all recent information was added to Microsoft Mobile including several beta trials so the fact that this page was renamed Lumia Beta Apps makes no sense. Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 3 December 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. Found the propose and support rationales compelling, so after one relisting and almost 20 days a consensus has been achieved. Happy Holidays to All! (closed by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there 21:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Lumia Beta Apps → Nokia phones beta labs – New name KaukoHaapavesi (talk) 04:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Brad  v  05:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). --  Alex TW 06:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I have proposed this move because Nokia phones beta labs is now the official name of the relaunched service (see https://www.nokia.com/en_int/phones/betalabs). --KaukoHaapavesi (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. No evidence that this new name has become the common name or that there is any other reason in terms of the article name policy, which editors are asked in several places to read before proposing a move. My essay at wp:official names was specifically written to address such nominations, which are unfortunately common. Both it and the policy are recommended reading. Andrewa (talk) 10:05, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support: a simple Google search for provided me only 2 relevant web links in the past year for "lumia beta apps", both of which are talking about the relaunch of the program under the new name. Searching for "nokia phones beta labs" gives me 7,000 hits in the past year. While Google searches do have their weaknesses, a quick scan through the results is pretty good evidence that the new title has become the common usage. , does this change your viewpoint?--Aervanath (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per Aervanath. Andrew, we've had this discussion before, and I guess we have to agree to disagree, but just to reiterate my point of view here - although there are often cases where common usage doesn't follow an official name change, in my experience they are the exception rather than the rule, and I don't agree that nominations like this one are automatically invalid. It's up to us as experienced RM regulars to check the validity of the case if the nominator does not do so. As such, I don't find your oppose vote particularly helpful here, sorry. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Post move
This closed without my getting back to change my !vote in view of evidence supplied, but I'd just like to say that I think it's both a good close and a good end result. (And so to explicitly answer the ping from, agree, this evidence would have reversed my position to support.)

But there are issues raised above about the process (and my role in it but that's not the important thing IMO) which may indicate a new consensus that should be reflected in policy and guidelines. I think wt:official names is the first place to discuss this, please comment there. TIA Andrewa (talk) 09:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)