Talk:Windows 10 Mobile/Archive 1

Windows Phone
The Windows Phone 8 and Windows Phone 8.1 pages both contain the Microsoft Windows family template, I see no reason to exclude it from this article merely because of the intent of making this page all about Windows Phone while Windows Phone itself is a member of that product family, personally I oppose the mere existence of page but if we're going for a separate page let's at least do it right and let the Microsoft Windows family template stay as it stays on literally every other mobile Windows product which includes every incarnation of Windows Phone and Windows Mobile, this page may have written Windows Phone ALL OVER IT, and I support it as long as it stays factual, but to remove a template that is present in every other Windows Phone page to further emphasize this fact makes no sense, this page should probably be treated more like Windows RT than a Windows Phone article, but I will go along with the page in its present development as long as it recognizes it as a part of the Windows 10 family and not a separate product family. Don't get me wrong, I don't want any of the Windows Phone-related content to be removed, but the removal of the template Microsoft Windows family is petty and unjustified, and I know that Wikipedia barely looks at branding as Microsoft retroactively rebranded Windows Mobile 5 and Windows Mobile 6.5.5 as Windows Phone 5 and Windows Phone 6.5 on the Microsoft Community, which is something I can respect as the operating systems remain different an incompatible, but the template links to various incompatible Windows-branded operating systems. --86.81.201.94 (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Website link and further criticism of the page.
More than half of this page is pure speculation, and I guess I can't take it to ViperSnake to go to the talk page to discuss it as they simply seem bent on removing any content I may add, for example recently after I've added a source to a part of the Messaging service on the Windows 10 page someone else wrote this user removed the entire paragraph, I'm not sure if you're in a personal vendetta with me or something as you earlier first undid my revision before your next revision being literally placing the template back in, maybe to simply undo any editing done with my I.P. adress or something, but you don't exactly own this page, as for my complaint of the fact that this page on a topic which has limited information and still has Windows Phone WRITTEN ALL OVER IT, despite nothing being released by Microsoft to verify any of this, the top of the infobox says that it's a release of the Windows Phone operating system, which is not true as Windows Phone has been rebranded, it's like writing that Windows Mobile 5 is a "release of the Pocket PC Operating System", further "the official website" is listed as Windows Phone dot com which is something we can't speculate on, and literally nothing on the website holds any information concerning Windows 10 (Mobile), nor is there a certainty that the website will exist when the operating system officially launches, the entire article is not written from a neutral point of view, but rather a Windowsphobic rhetoric that seems to distance any connection between the mobile operating system and its desktop counterpart, if any of this would've been confirmed by Microsoft I would've agreed with the style of the page, and I won't alter it as I know A) VS will undo it simply because my I.P. address wrote on the page, and B) it would be the same level of speculation as the present writers have provided, the template I provided is present at literally every other Windows Phone page, including Windows Phone 7, Windows Phone 8, and Windows Phone 8.1 and yet it was removed twice, the 2nd time it was literally just undoing my edit and then placing it back, which seems petty and when I responded by doing the same Wikipedia posted me a warning to ban me, while the aforementioned user somehow gets away with this provocative behaviour. But as the user is clearly not interested in discussion I won't address them further and will state that this page needs a serious look at branding, I'm not claiming that the operating system is exactly the same as the P.C. counterpart, but it does share branding, and unless Microsoft confirms that Windows Phone dot com or half of the information written in this article is true I'd say that we should refrain from the blatant speculation. Let's not forget that it's an article about a product in development and like the Windows 10 page this should refrain from rumours and speculation, the Windows 10 page was (rightfully) barred from having any information on Cortana on the Desktop based on leaks, and we should maintain the same right of integrity here. --86.81.201.94 (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it is not Windowsphobic. It is in fact, an exaggerated viewpoint perpetuated by Microsoft's marketing. It is undue to support Microsoft's view that Windows 10 for PC and Windows 10 for phone and small tablets are the same without giving coverage of the other perspectives covered by secondary sources, i.e. that Windows 10 for phone and small tablets is effectively Windows Phone 10. Also no, the Messaging section was removed from the article because it was in the wrong tone, and needed to be incorporated into existing headings (Online services) ViperSnake151   Talk  22:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Still the Windows Family Template had no justification of being constantly removed/undid, up until a few minutes ago literally every Windows Mobile version page had the Microsoft Windows Family template as the sole template, I added the Windows Mobile template (which was created as a split from the joint Windows Phone/Windows Mobile template) to it, in fact literally every version of Microsoft's Windows-branded mobile operating systems have had this template in it, which is why I fail to understand why you kept removing it, Windows Phone 7 has it, Windows Phone 8 has it, and Windows Phone 8.1 has it, the fact that you kept removing it during the early development of this article does make your editing style quite Windowsphobic, and I fail to see how your sources are more valid than mine, it's not about any exaggerated continuity between Windows and Windows on Mobile devices, it's about a product family of brands being listed as a product family of brands, though I can see that you've now accepted the fact that the template should in fact be at the bottom at the article so I shan't argue with you on that any further and in retrospect I agree with you on the fact that the messaging app (a descendent of the Windows Live Messenger client included in the original variant of Windows 8) should be included in online services, maybe my reaction was more emotional at the time than rational, but I still stand on the fact that this is a different family of brands from Windows Phone.


 * Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

NPOV and Microsoft marketing POV
A reminder that per NPOV policy, Windows 10 for phones must not be treated as an "edition" of Windows 10, but as a seperate product with similar branding. As User:Codename Lisa has said, "Exaggeration has always been one of the techniques of [advertising]"; even though they can all run one specific class of software and have similar UI components, it does not mean that the two platforms are exactly the same. We cannot give undue weight to specific viewpoints: it would be undue to solely recognize Microsoft's view that Windows 10 for phone and Windows 10 for PC are equal products, without acknowledging secondary sources that view it as a continuation of Windows Phone. No matter how "identical" MS claims it is, Windows 10 for phone cannot run Win32 software and is not freely available to purchase by users outside of new devices. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This literally reads like Windows R.T., it too is considered a Mobile Operating System more alike Google Android and iOS due to the fact that it doesn't run Win32 apps (other than the built-in ones in its obligatory desktop), and the fact that it's only "branded as Windows", meanwhile the Windows R.T. article and the Microsoft Windows Family template both recognize Windows R.T. as "an edition" of Windows 8.X, the issue here is not about the fact that Windows 10 for Mobile Devices (a term I'll use loosely here, mainly because laptops, notebooks, netbooks, powerbooks, Etc. can also be described as "mobile devices" so Windows has been "Mobile" since Windows One) is not a continuation of Windows Phone, only that this article doesn't reflect the branding change, for example the article reads "Microsoft promotes Windows 10 for phones and small tablets as being an edition of its PC counterpart, and has downplayed specific references to the Windows Phone brand in relation to it. However, critics have still considered the operating system to be an iteration and continuation of Windows Phone due to its lineage and similar overall functionality" now this is something I fully agree with, there is no dispute in the fact that Windows 10 for Mobile Devices is a continuation of Windows Phone (because it is), nor do I dispute the fact that this article has Windows Phone written ALL OVER IT... because it's accurate, we dispute branding, the fact is that Windows 10 for Mobile Devices is not Windows Phone-branded, it may quack like a duck, but this difference is just like how a Vietnamese person would call a Baozi "a cake" but a Dutch or Chinese person would call it "a bread", it's all about branding, and though Microsoft may exaggerate the "unification" of Windows and it's supposed underlying code or the supposedly "universal apps" (which do not exist), Windows R.T. is also "Windows-branded" and is actually treated as a version of Windows because of it, but the differences between Windows 10 for P.C.'s and Windows 10 for smaller devices are just as big as between Windows R.T. and Windows on the Desktop, and as Microsoft is trying to unify the code for their applications that are in the Windows (Phone) Store(s) their branding makes sense. Furthermore Windows R.T. is also not freely available for purchase unless you buy a Windows R.T. device.


 * Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Windows RT is different. Unlike Windows Phone, and aside from the incompatibility with third-party Win32 software, this actually did look and function like the PC version of Windows 8 (because it was an ARM compilation of it), and Microsoft did explicitly market it as a related product. ViperSnake151   Talk  00:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Windows 10 for Mobile Isn't Windows Phone
I've ran into some editors who believe that Windows 10 for mobile is some sort of "continuation" of Windows Phone, which makes it ok to include Windows 10 in WP version history pages and include the WP infobox in Win10 mobile articles. This is ludicrous. Just because an operating system is similar does not mean it is still Windows Phone. By that logic, Windows 10 mobile could be a "continuation" of WinRT, and we might as well make Windows 7 a "version" of Windows Vista since it was a continuation of the same principles and OS that Vista was. Microsoft has stated that it is removing the Windows Phone brand name-- which means it is being discontinued. The OS that this article describes is therefore not Windows Phone, and we should stop thinking of it as some weird version of Windows Phone and refer to it as the version of Windows 10 for small phones and tablets. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you're putting undue weight on Microsoft's opinion. It passes the duck test from what little we've seen of it so far. ViperSnake151   Talk  16:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The article you cited that suggested Windows Phone was "dead" also says "While there are obviously some major differences", fully admitting that Windows for phone is still a distinct product from Windows for PC. ViperSnake151  Talk  05:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Windows Phone to Windows 10 Mobile is just a rebrand. The OS is still a continuation on Windows Phone. It is as much as a change towards an uniform platform as Windows Phone 8.1 was to Windows Phone 8. Beside, we list iPhone OS also under iOS. What's the issue?--YannickFran (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well because re-brands can evolve as the iPhone O.S. did which was simply renamed into iO.S. but this is different this is an established brand (Windows Phone) being merged into another established brand (Windows), think about how Zune got re-branded as Xbox (an established brand) and now we have separate articles for Microsoft Xbox Music and Microsoft Xbox Video and may I note that the Windows Store apps have folders that call themselves Microsoft.ZuneMusic and Microsoft.ZuneVideo while I have seen no-one argue that we should make Xbox Music a part of Zune, in fact the only reason the Microsoft Zune template is below there is because I placed it there (as the underlying software and the subscription services all remained the same, but I did specifically note that it was a rebrand), but otherwise being a continuation of a former product does not make it the same product.
 * Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 09:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC) (formerly 86.81.201.94)

Changes to articles on Windows 10 for mobile to separate it from Windows Phone
I propose to make edits to all pages and infoboxes related to Windows Phone and Windows 10 for phones and small tablets (also called Windows 10 for mobile) '''to reflect the fact that Windows 10 for phones and small tablets is an independent OS, and not a version of Windows Phone. This includes:
 * Referring to Windows Phone 8.1 as the last version of Windows Phone and the Windows Phone family as being (soon-to-be) defunct on all Windows Phone pages
 * Removing any mention of Windows 10 for mobile in the Windows Phone infobox
 * Moving Windows 10 for mobile under Windows 10 (like WinRT is listed under Windows 8) in the main Windows infobox
 * Removing Windows 10 for mobile from the Windows Phone version history page
 * Making it clear on the Windows 10 for mobile article that Windows 10 for mobile is not Windows Phone, but does share similar code

It would be awesome if you guys could weigh in below on these proposed changes.

Reason for Change
Over the past few days, I've noticed that Windows 10 for mobile has been listed as being a version of Windows Phone under multiple infoboxes and the pages for Windows 10 for mobile and Windows Phone. I feel this doesn't reflect the reality that Windows 10 for mobile is an independent operating system-- and that Microsoft has ended Windows Phone completely by referring to everything as "Windows 10". This was shown by the Microsoft team when they unveiled Windows 10 last week as well as by multiple articles by sites such as The Verge and Digital Trends, both of which report notable tech news. The Verge itself has been reporting extensively about how Microsoft has slowly phased "Windows Phone" out of its marketing material, and even merged its YouTube and Facebook pages so that "Windows Phone" doesn't exist and it's all "Windows". It was only last week that Microsoft officially killed off the Windows Phone name. Microsoft's own Lumia Conversations blog also notes the fact that "Windows Phones" will be upgraded to "Windows 10" (for mobile), which shows how the Windows Phone family is defunct. Here are the links to all these articles:


 * http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/windows-phone-dead-windows-10-instead/
 * http://lumiaconversations.microsoft.com/2015/01/22/the-lumia-you-love-gets-even-better-with-windows-10/
 * http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/21/7868109/microsoft-stops-using-windows-phone-name
 * http://www.theverge.com/2014/9/10/6131695/microsoft-is-killing-the-nokia-and-windows-phone-brands (The article detailing the slow transformation of Windows Phone into Windows)

Also, I've seen the argument put forward that since Windows 10 for mobile "carries over the lineage" of Windows Phone, it is still a version of Windows Phone. This argument is flawed. Just because an OS is similar structurally to another does not make it the same OS. If this was the case, Microsoft's new Spartan Browser should be considered the twelfth version of Internet Explorer instead of something completely new, Windows 8 should be considered a version of Windows 7, Windows Phone itself should be considered a version of Windows Mobile, and Windows 10 for mobile itself should be some version of Windows RT (which it also succeeds). Companies often start new product lines (like Android TV succeeding Google TV, Spartan succeeding IE) that are similar to their predecessors but are considered separate products.

It's not our job to pretend that a soon-to-be defunct OS still exists. It's our job to reflect the present reality: which is that Windows Phone is dead and that the mobile version of Windows 10, however similar it is to Windows Phone, is clearly not Windows Phone but a distinct platform. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 05:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The proposed change would look like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_10&oldid=645784921 User:User931 19:51, 05 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose: We did not regard the Start screen as something distinct from Start menu, because it is Microsoft's exaggerated marketing. This is the same idea. The article you cited that suggested Windows Phone was "dead" also says "While there are obviously some major differences", fully admitting that Windows for phone is still a distinct product from Windows for PC. ViperSnake151   Talk  05:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not contending whether or not Win10 for mobile is a distinct product from Win10. It is. It just isn't Windows Phone, which the article mentions. Comparing the Start Screen to an OS is also an exaggeration. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 05:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree on this change, especially removing Windows 10 from Windows Phone version history, that's just absurd. I also think the natural place for Windows 10 on sub 8" devices is in the Windows 10 article with two separate sections for devices above 8" and below 8". User:User931 14:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, you're just colluding to only recognize Microsoft's viewpoint. It is exaggerated and only from a branding standpoint to push the new "universal apps" concept. As there have been no available releases, we just do not know how similar they are under the hood. Additionally, Microsoft's CEO stated that they were not changing the "SKU strategy", and said this has "more to do with how we are bringing teams together to approach Windows as one ecosystem very differently than we ourselves have done in the past." There are too few opinions in this discussion, and the only people in it have been those who unduly support Microsoft's assertion that this is one platform for ALL DEVICES. ViperSnake151   Talk  15:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Microsofts viewpoint or not. It is correct to mention how Windows 10 builds upon Windows Phone 8.1 but saying that Windows 10 is a release of the Windows Phone operating system is just detracting from the reality that the Windows Phone branding has been cancelled by Microsoft. One may not like Microsofts branding strategy but that's a completely different topic and Wikipedia should promote discoverability and not make own interpretations of branding and product names, that's up to the reader to decide on.User:User931 16:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Let's look at it a different way: Windows Phone is not a brand or "product line", but a mentality. Concepts acknowledged on the main Windows Phone article still apply to Windows 10 for phone, and there is clearly a continuity between them (given that Microsoft, in regards to updates for previous devices, is still treating it as an update to Windows Phone 8.1. Ever since the introduction of Windows Phone 7 Series, Microsoft has been unifying things: first the user interface, and now apps. The way you two are proposing we handle things will get very awkward: when Windows Phone 8 started using the same kernel/platform as desktop Windows, we did not magically consider it an "edition" of Windows 8. But now you're only suddenly doing this because they changed the name. And also, all controversal claims on Wikipedia must be backed by reliable secondary sources. None of them has specifically said "Windows 10 for phone is not Windows Phone", so we cannot go by that, and must use the Duck test. It still walks and quacks like Windows Phone, so it might as well be considered a new version. ViperSnake151   Talk  18:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You are stretching it way too far, a mentality? Windows Phone was a defined product by Microsoft not a freaking mentality. Yes, concepts apply because Windows 10 builds upon Windows Phone 8.1, and that's not just the sub 8" device version, but the above 8" device version as well since several features and code from WP8.1 are included in both versions. Look, you have to realize that Wikipedia is supposed to describe the reality as it is, Windows Phone 8 is not described as an edition of Windows 8 because it was marketed and branded as a separate product and therefore that was reflected. However, what is also reflected in the Windows Phone 8 article is the introduction of the NT kernel and the many shared components with Windows 8. With Windows 10 Microsoft is clearly taking it one step further by introducing universal apps, syncing of notifications and messages across devices and unification of the user interface on top of the already shared kernel, file system, drivers, network stack, security components, media and graphics support and they reflect this by using the same branding.User:User931 19:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I cannot consider this a valid discussion until there are more outside contributors. You and EndlessCoffee54 are just rehashing the exact same arguments to counter anyone who disagrees with you. Oh, and the Ars Technica article cited supports my side, because it saw through this apparent smokescreen Microsoft had set up and still called it the "next version of Windows Phone." ViperSnake151   Talk  00:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * ¿Would you have placed that Windows Mobile 2003 was "a release of the Pocket P.C. operating system" when the branding has clearly changed? Branding is important, and Windows 10 for Phones should not be in the Windows Phone template because it's not branded as such, it should be in the Windows Phone article itself because it's a continuation of the software, but not the brand, and the Windows Phone template is about the Windows Phone brand, because Windows Phone 8 isn't compatible with Windows Phone 7.X either, no Windows Phone 7.X (Series) device ever upgraded to Windows Phone 8, and until Joe Belfiore officially announced anything about the internals of Windows 10 Mobile we can only go by rumours (some papers call it "Windows Phone 10", and others claim that it's "the mobile edition of Windows 10"), we should adhere to the branding and place it under Windows 10 as it belongs to "the Windows 10 family of products" (which absorbed Windows Phone, and Windows Embedded), I'm not disputing any of the content of the article that explains the relation to Windows Phone, the fact that it has Windows Phone written ALL OVER IT, or the fact that it's not a "version" of Windows Phone because those are all accurate and true, but the branding has changed and it's not like it's "an orphaned" brand like the transition from Pocket P.C. to Windows Mobile was as a previously non-existing brand with no outside relations replaced a previous brand, this is being replaced by a brand that contains multiple (established) members in the family, and if Windows Phone was "a mentality" it's a different mentality from Windows 10 for Phones because A) Windows Phone was always championed as a "companion device" for Windows and O.S. X or another operating system that works great with Microsoft's online cloud services. B) Universal apps may have been introduced in Windows Phone 8.1 but they weren't advertised as "the same" until late 2014, and C) Windows Phone always had a different function as Windows 8.X and Windows 7 and catered to different audiences (Windows Phone was (unfortunately) about "being simple", while Windows for P.C.'s has always been about having the most features, updates, and being the best for end-users, gamers, businesspeople, Power-Users, and developers), using your metaphor against you aside this article should reflect on the fact that it's a member of a new family of products, it's not the same as rebranding "Nokia Lumia" to "Microsoft Lumia", this is more than a name change, unlike Windows Phone these devices are designed to be more "in-sync" with Windows, so the branding is important to the product itself. Also Windows Phone 7 launched with a removed features page in relation to Windows Mobile 6.5(.5) while starting its product family's list of changes, Windows 10 for Phones could have a link to the Windows Phone version history stating that it's a continuation, but keeping the version history on this page and removing it from the Windows Phone V.H. page, much like how every version of Xbox has a standalone version history of the software.


 * Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 10:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree and comment: though I do agree that the branding should be reflected on this page, but Windows 10 for Mobile Devices should still be mentioned on the main Windows Phone page in it's history as the part development already started with mentions of Windows Mobile, and I have to agree with the Windows Phone-centric nature this page uses, but not when it concerns branding such as "A release of the Windows Phone operating system" is incorrect, though Windows 10 for Mobile Devices is clearly a continuation of Windows Phone, it's not an iteration as it's branded differently, I don't know if I should copy my separate arguments from the Microsoft Windows Family Template's talk page, but since it's quite a lot I shan't, but I don't think that it's Wikipedia's place to ignore differences in branding, though there are examples that would support ViperSnake's perspective, most notably how Pocket P.C. articles are listed under the "Windows Mobile" group of operating systems, or how Windows C.E. has been re-branded as Windows Embedded Compact and Wikipedia used the newer brand again and referred to the older articles as different branded versions of the same software so I can understand their point of view, but as of present we know nothing of the underlying code nor A.P.I.'s of the operating system, all sides can only speculate, Microsoft has released nothing on Windows 10 for Mobile Devices' underlying code, and if we're going to use backwards compatibility as a standard for placing articles into families they're not branded in then we can consider the Nintendo GameCube a continuation of the Nintendo 64, or the Nintendo Wii as a continuation of the Nintendo GameCube, or by comparison the Nintendo Game Boy Advance a continuation of the Nintendo Game Boy Colour, and the Nintendo D.S. a continuation of the Nintendo Game Boy Advance, Etc. backwards compatibility doesn't dictate the family, but I'll have to disagree with EndlessCoffee's statement that Windows Phone is "dead", it's "alive & well" as Windows 10 for Mobile Devices, just under a different name, and the article should reflect the change of branding. I don't dispute ANY of the Windows Phone references in the article itself, I just disagree with the fact that it's still listed under "Windows Phone" when the brand has officially been discontinued, also to debunk a common used remark by V.S. no Microsoft didn't market the Start Screen as different from the Start Menu, most news-outlets did, they called it an evolution and re-introduced the Start-button in Windows 8.1 (Blue) to reflect this, they didn't call them differently until Windows 10 when they noticed that consumers "loved" the "start menu" so they said "the return of the Windows 7 Start-Menu" despite the fact that Windows 8 itself constantly calls the start-screen "the start-menu" and most folders still refer to it as "the start-menu" as well, the differences were imaginary and were mostly claimed by bloggers, I have never seen Microsoft market them as 2 separate entities before the advent of Windows 10 to woo Windows 7-consumers.


 * Also several sites refer to Windows 10 for Mobile Devices as "Windows 10 Mobile" (Windows Mobile PowerUser), "Windows 10 for Phones" (WinBeta), though as a counter-argument one might refer to an author on W.M.PowerUser who refers to it as "Windows Phone 10", but the fact remains that it's not branded as "Windows Phone", so it shouldn't be listed as a release of Windows Phone here.


 * Sincerely,--86.81.201.94 (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Made this change appropriately. If anyone objects, please post here before considering reverting. Thanks! &#60;&#60;&#60; SOME GADGET GEEK &#62;&#62;&#62; (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No. This discussion has not had enough outside contributions. I object to its result until there is wider participation. ViperSnake151   Talk  19:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll have to state WP:CRYSTAL because Microsoft has only shown us the surface (no pun intended) of Windows 10 Mobile, we don't know anything about the internals and the developer A.P.I.'s so we can't state that it's a mere "version" of Windows Phone, until Microsoft releases more information this article is Schrödinger's mobile operating system, personally I think that this discussion is endless until more is revealed by Microsoft otherwise both parties are right.
 * Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify when I meant the only thing that's certain at present is that Windows 10 Mobile is a part of the Windows 10 family of products, much like how Windows Embedded exists as a collection of incompatable operating systems that share nothing but a brand, Windows 10 is comparable to a certain extend, it's a family of operating systems, but unlike Windows Embedded these are more compatible with each other (as all members use WinR.T./APPX for their application development), I think that you're right (too) as it is comparable to Pocket P.C. -> Windows Mobile as the name changed, and it was fully compatible, but literally nothing of the operating system itself is known so the only information we can accept is that it belongs to Windows 10.
 * Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Translation: We do not know anything about if it is sufficiently Windows 10 or not. We'll call it that anyway. ViperSnake151   Talk  22:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not much different from "we don't know if it's different enough from Windows Phone, so let's just consider it an iteration of it", at-least my argument rests on the fact that they're all included in the same family of products, and we consider the Windows R.T.-based Windows Embedded 8 the same as Windows C.E. in Wikipedia, and you might call out that other stuff exists is not a good argument, but it makes the least assumptions and is more valid than plain speculation.
 * Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Also to come back on your argument that "I object to its result until there is wider participation" I'll have to state that this is NOT a vote, it bears no relevance if 10 people vote for "Con" and only 3 vote for "Pro", if the arguments presented are sufficient enough the discussion is completed.
 * Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not say or imply this was a vote. I want a consensus, but I want a consensus from uninvolved users as well in order to adequately cover all perspectives without the bias of having participated in prior disputes on the matter. ViperSnake151   Talk  00:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree to that as this discussion has become quite repetitive, new arguments on both sides would be most welcome.
 * Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 09:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I think one has to start think about this from the other way around. What is it that make Windows 10 on <8" devices so different than on ≥8" devices that it should be treated as a completely different OS? If all underlying components are the same, as it has been since WP8, and now basically all included apps are universal apps with even the settings as an universal app then what differs? The desktop environment (edit, Win32/64 APIs) differs yes, but it just would not work well on these small devices and had to be excluded. If then removing all of the universal apps from the equation one is left with basically 4 UI components that constitutes Windows 10 on <8" devices;
 * 1. A start screen that looks similar to the desktop in Windows 10 (will likely gain live tiles support)
 * 2. A notification center which is the same as in Windows 10 on ≥8" devices
 * 3. An app list that will function and look similar to the start menu
 * 4. A share menu
 * That's about it. Windows 10 <8" devices basically boils down to a Windows 10 w/o desktop environment with a few UI components of its own. User:User931 18:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It also cannot run Win32 software, is not available as a standalone retail product [different distribution model], and will have differing reception because it will be reviewed as a phone operating system by critics. I must remind you that some of the claims you are making are borderline original research, such as the argument that Windows Phone is "defunct". ViperSnake151   Talk  18:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nay, as these arguments are a part of the article itself, the universal settings and applications have been presented at the January 21st event (2015), in fact the Google YouTube video you have inserted in the Windows 10 <8" version history, sepecifically on the settings app here, I don't see how User931's argument borders original research, it only asks to present what we know of the operating system at present, as for Windows Phone being "defunct" or not is not the issue, the fact remains that this specific version has become a part of a different product family and brand, and the similarities with the other products from the same family are enough to view them as different "versions", as for the product family being "Microsoft Windows" historically here on Wikipedia some Windows Mobile articles have described their articles as "a release of the Microsoft Windows operating system" and in fact a Zune page still notes that due to the fact that it's based on the Windows C.E. kernel which shares even less code with Windows 10 ≥8" than Windows 10 <8", also Windows 10 ≥8" has its own version history template independent of prior versions of Microsoft Windows, I fail to see how EndlessCoffee's desire to remove it from a page that is different branded would be different from the template that is independent from other articles that share the same brand, furthermore when Windows itself first was released it was barely any different from Microsoft D.O.S. but M.S.-D.O.S. is not in the Windows template as a standalone operating system because Windows is part of a separate brand, the same change occurs now with Windows 10, one family of products (Windows Phone which includes incompatible members like Windows Phone 7 and Windows Phone 8) being replaced by another family of products (Windows 10), it also isn't a separate brand it's all branded under Windows 10 regardless of compatibility, much like how Microsoft ActiveSync wouldn't function on Windows Mobile 6.0, and how the Windows Mobile Device Centre won't function with Pocket P.C. 2000 software, and the Zune Software doesn't recognize Windows Phone 8 as "Windows Phone", and by the same comparison the Windows Phone App doesn't recognize Windows Phone 7.X as "Windows Phone", software compatibility is often independent of branding, and if it were a measurement than Windows 10 <8" would be in fact "the Windows RT of Windows 10".
 * Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC) (formerly 86.81.201.94)
 * "It also cannot run Win32 software, is not available as a standalone retail product [different distribution model], and will have differing reception because it will be reviewed as a phone operating system by critics" You also keep using a comparison that would be very valid when comparing it to Windows R.T. and to quote you again "Windows RT is different. Unlike Windows Phone, and aside from the incompatibility with third-party Win32 software, this actually did look and function like the PC version of Windows 8 (because it was an ARM compilation of it), and Microsoft did explicitly market it as a related product." This is equally valid for Windows 10 <8" as the start-screen and app list are specifically designed to be the same as that on Windows 10 ≥8", and the desktop isn't the only measurement to which we can call an operating system "Windows" and Microsoft now (again) explicitly markets Windows 10 <8" as a related product giving it even the same name.
 * Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC) (formerly 86.81.201.94)

Referring to Windows Phone 8.1 as the last version of Windows Phone and the Windows Phone family as being (soon-to-be) defunct on all Windows Phone pages Disagree, Windows Phone devices are expected to be upgradable to W10 mobile (so long as carriers pass the updates). Windows Phone 8.x apps (not the universal type) will run on W10 mobile (but not W10 desktop)
 * Agree. Windows 10 is not part of the Windows Phone family, even if it is mostly the same from a code perspective (It's not like MS have re-written the entire OS for Windows 10). NeoGeneric (talk) 06:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Removing any mention of Windows 10 for mobile in the Windows Phone infobox Agree, W10 is not part of the Windows Phone brand NeoGeneric (talk) 06:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Moving Windows 10 for mobile under Windows 10 (like WinRT is listed under Windows 8) in the main Windows infobox Agree, I would expect Windows OSes to become more unified as development continues in the future.

Removing Windows 10 for mobile from the Windows Phone version history page Disagree, as above - even though W10 is a 'separate' OS, it has closer ties to Windows Phone than W10 desktop (that page is now being considered for deletion). and it is important to maintain some continuity between Windows Phone 8.1/Windows 10. NeoGeneric (talk) 06:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Making it clear on the Windows 10 for mobile article that Windows 10 for mobile is not Windows Phone, but does share similar code Agree - if I were pedantic I wouldn't say share similar code, I see it as W10 mobile has been derived from Windows Phone.

Cheers. NeoGeneric (talk) 07:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Windows 10 is supersceeding both Windows 8.1 and Windows Phone 8.1. The last time Microsoft did this type of merger would be Windows XP that superceeded both the Windows 9x family (Specifically, Windows Me) and the NT family (Specifically Windows 2000). The Kernal of the current Windows Phone 8.1 is basically the same Kernal as Windows 8. now. In recent slides, they show that the Winodws 10 Mobile edition will be backwards comatible with Windows Phone apps, making it a true direct-successor to Windows Phone 8.1. Just because they are marketing as a different OS does not make it one from a product progression standpoint. Remember too, the "Phone" monikor was added in. The plan with Windows Phone all along was to make it one OS, and they even marketed it that way with the original "Windows 7 Phone Edtition" name, which eventually was shortened. In short, Windows 10 is the propper sucessor to Windows Phone 8.1, not a completely different OS. Bytemaster (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Section break: What's in a name?
User:User931, disregarding the lack of true consensus in this discussion, has gone ahead and merged most of this article into Windows 10, with undue support of Microsoft's point of view that Windows 10 for PC and Windows 10 for phone are the exact same product and not a successor to Windows Phone not withstanding any other arguments, when I have repeatedly pointed out that this is just a branding exercise that other contributors to this discussion are taking way too seriously.

I demanded a proper consensus of uninvolved users. Please also take into account that this is not, and never will be a vote. The Windows 10 article will be a mess, just as much as Microsoft's marketing, unless the phone ahem, EDITION, is treated as a separate product in its entirety. Thus I consider this to be no consensus unless uninvolved users without bias are introduced to the discussion. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We never stated that this was a discussion of merger, and no-one here voted for any merger, in fact on the "Big Windows 10" discussion page I voted (made an argument) against it, this discussion is about treating "Small Windows 10" as an edition of "Big Windows 10" in the Fashion of Windows R.T. and Windows XP Media Centre Edition rather than merging the articles, if you want to discuss this issue please go to the proper talk page and set up your argument there, but this is an "this does (not) belong to the Windows Phone-family of (mobile) products"-type of discussion and is bears no relation to the recent merger.
 * Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC) (formerly 86.81.201.94)


 * Editors should not be trying to merge a controversial article like this first without opening a discussion on the talk page-- I agree with ViperSnake151 completely on this. But moving on to the debate, It looks like several users have already weighed in on changing the name of this page, and the consensus is pretty clear that we should make my proposed edits. ViperSnake151, there is nothing in Wikipedia that states that "uninvolved users" must be included in the debate. And we have so far had several others besides yourself, me and User931 say that this change is necessary. You seem to be the lone dissenter here and you also seem to be putting too much weight into your own argument as a result, saying that anybody who comments is somehow biased towards the outcome you don't prefer. But this entire discussion is really confusing. I'm going to request for this conflict to be mediated by a third-party, who will be able to direct this conversation in a direction where we can definitively achieve an answer as to whether or not to make these proposed edits. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 07:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Just submitted the mediation request. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 07:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it's important to remember that Vipersnake is the creator of this article and that the argument that we who agree on this change are biased is quite strange. I get the feeling that Vipersnake has a personal interest in this article, for example any edits are quickly reverted w/o proper explanation. About the merge of this article I have to admit that I didn't see that Endlesscoffees original suggestion about moving Windows 10 mobile under Windows 10 was about the infobox. Therefore after 6 people weighing in and the discussion came to an end i did the change. With that said i still think this article should be incorporated in the Windows 10 article. User:User931 11:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Windows


 * 5 users (I'm also 86.81.201.94, but I created this account to create a navigation template for Zune), but that aside, this may not be a vote (as the number of users who agree with something is irrelevant to the arguments presented, 10 people can be wrong, and 1 can be write, this is why we have the "Wikipedia is not a vote" "law" (¿company-law? ¿rule?), but I think that a neutral mediator (as EndlessCoffee has summoned) will be best to judge, as for your merger, though personally I do agree with it, let's not forget that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball with clairvoyant characteristics and we don't have any information on the internals of the operating system, but it is clear that it does not belong to the Windows Phone family of products, for example Windows 10 <8" has already been mentioned on windows dot microsoft dot com, while the www dot windowsphone dot com website makes absolutely no mention of Windows 10, then again I'll have to agree with ViperSnake's arguments to a certain extend, I do support that this page should have Windows Phone WRITTEN ALL OVER IT as it's indeed relevant and important to the history of this page's subject, and we can't use Lumia Conversations as a source by Wikipedia's policies as it's 1st party, much like how Skype Qik's blog posts have been removed (but I'm not sure if Microsoft Lumia Conversations are blogs or can be considered a news-outlet, but then again I use them as a source when editing Microsoft Lumia-related articles all the time), I think that all the editing in the future should be done by the neutral mediator summoned by EndlessCoffee otherwise they'll be subject to ViperSnake and Codename Lisa's endless reverts, but I didn't change my stance on that no matter the outcome of this discussion it could still go either way as Microsoft hasn't released much information yet, and I'll have to quote C.L. (though I almost always disagree with this user, and have some sort of personal semi-vendetta with them, they make a point for once) "let's face it, we still don't know Microsoft's plan for Windows Phone line: Just a new name (co-branding campaign) or total discontinuation. Plus, Microsoft has a history of sudden decision change. (And unfortunately, we in Wikipedia have a history of making a fool out of ourselves by ignoring the tried-and-triumphant policies like CRYSTAL and OR.)", but as for now with the present indications especially from the fact that Windows 10 <8" only appears on Windows-related and Windows-branded sites it's safe to say that the Windows Phone brand has officially been abolished (I just wouldn't call it "dead") and that removing Windows 10 from the template and version history would be wiser.
 * Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 12:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC) (formerly 86.81.201.94)


 * Clarification I meant to state that only 1 of "our" sources is a primary source, and Wikipedia articles should mostly quote secondary and tertiary sources, something we did do, in fact something we did do with the Verge, Digital Trends, WinBeta, and Windows Mobile PowerUser, while ViperSnake has only named Ars Technica (in this discussion, I'm not talking about the article because a simple Bing search can easily find secondary and tertiary sources for both sides as we can't give Microsoft undue weight), ¿but why are our sources any less legitimate than those named by V.S.? as far as I can tell we've named more sources, and I don't see why they are any less reliable, and I also didn't mention the windows dot microsoft dot com Vs. www dot windowsphone dot com "argument" earlier because that would be original research and I can't find any news sources that have noticed the same so I can't use that as a "valid argument" by Wikipedia's policies, so don't mistake it as I was making an argument, I was merely making a statement that the branding is consistent.
 * Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 12:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC) (formerly 86.81.201.94)
 * Okay, so a screenshot or two leaked of a Windows Phone 10 build: the about screen still looks like the one from 8.1, but identifies itself as "Windows 10 Mobile", and still contains a reference to Windows Phone. ViperSnake151   Talk  19:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a leak from a (probably) internal build, brands aren't relevant to internal discussions, Microsoft refers to Microsoft Mobile Oy as "the Nokia unit" internally despite not being owned by Nokia anymore, the rebranding process is still in process, but if the brand will remain there until the first developer technical previews are released I'll "change my vote" (in a manner of speaking), as for branding technical previews are never the final version so things may (gradually) change over time..
 * Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC) (formerly 86.81.201.94)

Update Method - ¿Windows Store?
¿Can anyone please verify that Windows 10 for sub 8-inch devices can be updated through the Windows Store? Microsoft hasn't officially announced the end of the Windows Phone Store(, yet) so we can't speculate whether or not Windows 10 8- will have the same application store are Windows 10 8+, if someone can find a reliable source we should keep it, but so far nothing is known about how consumer applications can be downloaded, and historically Windows Phone versions have always updated either via Zune or Firmware over the air. If it can't be sourced I'll remove it from the infobox. Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Rename the article?
Whilst I agree that this page should be separate from Windows 10, I seriously think that it should be renamed. The title Windows 10 for phones and small tablets is simply too long and cramped. A perfect name would be something like Windows 10 for Mobiles - because mobiles would refer to both phones and small tablets.

Not to mention that many journalists refer to it as mobile:
 * Windows 10 for Mobile: Digital Trends, http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/windows-10-for-mobile-news/
 * Windows 10 mobile: ZDnet, http://www.zdnet.com/article/first-windows-10-mobile-preview-due-in-february-key-to-microsofts-onecore-vision/
 * Windows 10 Mobile: WMPowerUser, http://wmpoweruser.com/here-is-everything-we-know-about-windows-10-mobile/
 * Windows 10 on Mobile: PCMag UK, http://uk.pcmag.com/news/36271/windows-10-on-mobile-weve-heard-this-all-before

Also, ZDNet call the developer SKU as Windows 10 mobile SKU: http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-ready-to-show-off-windows-10-mobile-sku-on-january-21/

As per these reasons I think it should be called mobile. Then comes the question of how to call it, either Windows 10 (mobile) or Windows 10 for mobile etc.

--G&#38;CP (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: It is the official name Microsoft gave. ViperSnake151   Talk  16:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: "Mobile" can also mean laptops, netbooks, notebooks, powerbooks, Etc. when Windows 95 was released people praised it for being "a mobile-friendly operating system" (one optimised for what were then called laptops), though it may be a popular name, Microsoft hasn't called it that. Though I must admit that it has a better and easier sound to it, and it would be shorter and more efficient to name it as such, but it's still an unofficial name. Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC) (formerly 86.81.201.94)
 * Withdrawn Can't argue with the official naming. --Namlong618 (talk) 02:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC) (formerly 86.81.201.94)

About page. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, Support. The leaked screenshots of the technical preview build (which do look accurate) refer to it as "Windows 10 Mobile" on the

Who would want to call Windows 10 Mobile that when it is the same version used on both smartphones and small screen tablets? I suggest we roll back the renaming until it is considered official by Microsoft themselves. 99.244.30.79 (talk) 03:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Uhh, because they're mobile devices? Why wouldn't you call it that? Is this some sort of logic bomb? ViperSnake151   Talk  16:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As part of the meditation process I will raise the topic of whether Windows 10 should be officially called Windows 10 Mobile or otherwise. &#60;&#60;&#60; SOME GADGET GEEK &#62;&#62;&#62; (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 8 February 2015

 * 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. Three supports (including the nominator) with one oppose, and there does seem to be enough grounds that the common name is such, to do the move. Note: the move will require admin assistance, which I will request. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Windows 10 Mobile → Windows 10 (mobile) – Until Microsoft announces that Windows 10 Mobile is the official name, we cannot call this page by that name. With that, I am proposing a move to Windows 10 (mobile). --Relisted. Number   5  7  14:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC) &#60;&#60;&#60; SOME GADGET GEEK &#62;&#62;&#62; (talk) 03:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's the problem: the official name is Windows 10, and that is how Microsoft is going to promote it. But we cannot call our article that, because the article for Windows 10 PC is at that page, so it has to be disambiguated somehow, and we'd rather keep a nice firm wall between the two for our editorial purposes. The leaked screenshot called itself "Windows 10 Mobile", and that is probably as definitive as we're going to get. ViperSnake151   Talk  06:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If Windows 10 is the official name of the OS, naming this article Windows 10 Mobile would be misleading as readers would believe this to be the official name, when it is not. Renaming the article as Windows 10 (mobile) would avoid this confusion as it would be obvious that the official name is still Windows 10 and this article is only about the mobile site of things. &#60;&#60;&#60; SOME GADGET GEEK &#62;&#62;&#62; (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Disagree: I was going to agree, but it looks like it was officially renamed that (and possibly will be officially abbreviated "W10M"). Windows 10 Mobile seen in the wild Wikimandia (talk) 11:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree Until this is made publicly it should have brackets User:User931, 18:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What will ViperSnake151 say about the fact that a leaked screenshot is enough to suffice a page rename? With that I have done some rewording to avoid this confusion. &#60;&#60;&#60; SOME GADGET GEEK &#62;&#62;&#62; (talk) 04:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree this has not been made official in a statement so it should be in brackets. Until Microsoft outlines branding, we should assume it to be called Windows 10 (mobile). Chabgo (talk) 10:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well actually as I've written both above and bellow and with several sources in the article itself the official name of the (mobile) operating system is Windows 10, Microsoft even called it Windows 10 during the event, though here on Anglophone Wikipedia any edit changing "upgrades to Windows 10 will be offered at no charge for consumer users of Windows 7 and Windows 8.1." to "upgrades to Windows 10 will be offered at no charge for consumer users of Windows 7, Windows 8.1 and Windows Phone 8.1." would immediately reverted the Belgophone page actually includes this and names Windows 10 to be the successor of Windows 8.1, Windows Phone 8.1, and Windows Embedded, I'm not saying that we should "mirror" that, only that the official name Microsoft gives is Windows 10, this move is long overdue, and is what fits best, though I'm sure we can keep the P.C. version just "Windows 10" and just add the "(Mobile)" here to simply differentiate the 2.
 * Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 14:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC) (formerly 86.81.201.94)

Here is a screenshot that reads "Windows 10 Technical Preview for phones" so it's officially called Windows 10, but as we already have another page with that name it's best to call it Windows 10 (mobile), if no-one objects someone should rename the page. Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC) (formerly 86.81.201.94)

Enacted I have completed this rename, due to the overwhelming support. Chabgo (talk) 08:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Correction I do not have permissions, but request an admin to do so now. Chabgo (talk) 08:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ¿Have you already requested an admin or should I do so now?
 * Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 10:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC) (formerly 86.81.201.94)
 * Pardon, misread what you wrote...
 * Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 12:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC) (formerly 86.81.201.94)

I don't know how to report all of this to an administrator or how to move it, I'll try to contact whomever made this page immovable in the first place, and my attempt at closing this template didn't work out well either, ¿does anyone know how to contact the administrator? ¿does anyone know how to contact a administrator? if so then please try to close this discussion and rename the page, or at-least try to request an administrator to close this discussion and rename the page as from here everyone only seem to agree, and the official name has been revealed and it's simply Windows 10 with nothing extra behind it, something that has in fact been announced during the January event when that lead to the creation of this page, despite there being loads of speculation concerning its existence for months, but then we finally got valid first party and secondary and tertiary sources with announced and confirmed features that will be featured in the mobile operating system that is, and shares its name with Windows 10, hopefully someone will come and re-name this page soon as for now it only services to promote misleading information that it's called "Windows 10 Mobile" which is used by some news outlets (think of Windows Mobile PowerUser, but then again one (1) author on that site also names it "'Windows Phone 10"), but it's not the official name and should not be stated as such, I hope that someone will notify an administrator as soon as possible. Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 10:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC) (formerly 86.81.201.94)


 * 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.

Personal interest in this article by user ViperSnake151
I think this needs to be brought to discussion. There is a repeating pattern where edits, made by different users, are constantly reverted by user ViperSnake151 for no obvious reason other than that the edit doesn't seem to fit ViperSnake151s picture of how this article should be laid out. Instead of being constructive, for example removing a reference for not being valid and replacing with "citation needed" or similar, information is completely deleted. Also deletion of information/whole paragraphs have been hidden in edits with edit summaries not describing the actual edit. ViperSnake151 is the creator of this article, which in itself should not lead to any assumption of bias but in this case i think that bias can't be ruled out. User:User931 22:08, 7 February (UTC)
 * So you're accusing me of ownership, right? Personally, I might be overstepping things a bit, but there are still problems with your edits as they capture the wrong tone and put undue weight towards Microsoft's interpretations of certain concepts (i.e. "all 'Windows 10 devices' run the same operating system). Additionally, some of your edits leave the extent of the changes made unclear aside from "universal". We just don't know everything yet. I also typically follow BRD in situations like this, and I thought the rule was "Comment on content, not on the contributor". I'm just trying to keep this page concise and not a mess. ViperSnake151   Talk  22:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll have to agree with ViperSnake on this one, much on the universal apps are either A) unconfirmed, E.G. I altered the Calculator App to include unit conversion, but that was pure speculation on my part, and B) "not special", the declaration of an application being "universal" doesn't change anything in the code of the app itself, though I would argue that we can't make much assumptions about the Windows 10 ecosystem because Microsoft hasn't released anything for developers yet other than for the P.C. version, an example of a universal app that we have now is Microsoft Skype which doesn't share the same features between cell.-phones and P.C.'s, for example in the Windows Phone version you can send pictures by uploading them to the Skype cloud and the user can receive it, further you can make drawings, and there are several other "minor features" that the P.C. version lacks. In this case ViperSnake is right in the fact that we have been putting undue weight on Microsoft's "fantastic" claims (fantastic, but not impossible). Furthermore several of their (V.S.) reverts have kept the neutrality of the page high (thus they acted against bias), and personally I think that the reworded part on Universal Applications looks way better than including it in the Wikitable as Windows Phone 8.1 also launched with universal applications and that wasn't included in that page's table. My stance on any claim Microsoft makes is "show it, then prove it" as they showed a single universal application run on a Windows Phone, Windows P.C. and an Xbox during their 2013 /Build// event and Windows (Phone) 8.1 (Blue) didn't turn out to be the honey pot we were promised, so we must take a stance of awaiting official confirmation that should best be reaffirmed by secondary and tertiary sources, and V.S.'s explanation of WinR.T. applications have actually made it more readable as the listed applications won't be the only universal applications included, and knowing Microsoft most changes will be "under the hood" anyhow so I'll repeat my stance on "let's wait for it before we'll rush in with the wrong information".
 * Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 00:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC) (formerly 86.81.201.94)

I'll paste your reply to me here Vipersnake since it is better to have this conversation publicly

What is the problem with my revisions? The fact that we are not using the non-neutral Microsoft buzzword "universal" in the changelog? The fact that we aren't using your "approved" wordings? We already went over this in the talk page thread that you started, and are refusing to continue. We agreed that the fact that an app is now "universal" does not merit its inclusion into the changelog unless there actually are changes made to it (i.e. Cortana/turn-by-turn on maps), especially if said functionality was already on Windows Phone to begin with (i.e. alarms, calculator, Xbox Video/Music). Additionally, you insist on including a paragraph of original research with no citations, and defend it as a "foundation for making W10 (mobile) possible." so it must be included with your exact, redundant wording.

It feels like that, despite claims to the contrary, you are the one asserting ownership of the article, because another user actually supports what I've been doing.

Plus, what do you mean by "dublicate"? Dubious and duplicate? ViperSnake151  Talk  15:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Where is the discussion saying universal is a buzzword? If anything it is explanatory and explains the difference of the apps compared to earlier modern apps since they now can run on multiple device types. But, I have listened to your critic and removed as many "universal"-words as possible and also changed the term "on all Windows 10 devices" to just "on Windows 10 devices" after your critic about that. Still you are continuing to revert. Every single app that is listed have been changed so I don't understand that argument at all. The source code of Windows is proprietary and not open source so if you feel that Microsoft is lying then we might just delete this whole article because we will never get to know the inner workings of the operating system. The last question of yours just defines your whole attitude here, duplicate yes. User:User931 15:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As you may have noticed, I finally caved in and compromised more than usual: I actually found more specific details on the changes to these apps in relation to previous versions of Windows Phone, and made a sourced version of the WP8 shift to NT section that flows better in the Development section. ViperSnake151   Talk  16:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "Universal apps" were introduced in Windows Phone 8.1 (Blue) and several bundled and pre-installed applications are already universal applications, these include but are not limited to: Microsoft Xbox Music, Microsoft Xbox Video, Microsoft Skype, M.S.N. News, M.S.N. Sports, M.S.N. Money, M.S.N. Weather, M.S.N. Food & Drink, and M.S.N. Health & Fitness. These applications are already "universal" and have been since the introduction of Windows Phone 8.1 (Blue), Microsoft's Bing Maps (officially called Windows Phone Maps) isn't listed in the Windows Phone Store and can't be considered "an app" but "a feature" until Microsoft officially confirms that the Bing Maps application for Windows 10 will be Store-updatable rather than simply appearing as a feature, possibly the Microsoft Calendar (formerly M.S.N. Calendar, Windows Live Calendar, Windows Live Hotmail Calendar, and Hotmail Calendar or alternatively known as the Outlook.com Calendar) is a "universal app" or not, I haven't checked yet, but that would be original research anyhow (but then again I could easily find a dozen sources to back me up, but still), so I must agree that your stance on the app convergeance is correct but not the manner you want to implement it, ViperSnake does it more encyclopedic and not every little "upgrade" to "universal app" should be noted as their respective changelogs will note it, and let's forget that most applications by Microsoft are already "universal applications".

−
 * Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC) (formerly 86.81.201.94)


 * As far as I know those apps share code but they are not the same app on both platforms (research needs to be done on this) whereas the apps coming with Windows 10 is just one app that adapts itself to screen size. User:User931 16:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The PC World article that originally described Universal apps, as unveiled at Build 2014, stated that "Developers will also be able to create tailored experiences for each device type, if they so choose, but reuse the bulk of the code for all the apps", implying that while they share code, they still need to have some adaptations/variation for them to work on platforms other than PC. Don't forget, we don't know the complete picture yet (we probably will when Build 2015 comes along) so things may have changed in between (and that presentation was oriented towards consumer features rather than development), so for now, as with many other things, we have to go with what we know. ViperSnake151   Talk  16:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity in the line "Release[edit]Windows Phone 8.1 smartphones can be upgraded to Windows 10 Mobile, pursuant to hardware compatibility and manufacturer support. In November 2014, a post by a Microsoft Twitter account stated that all Nokia and Microsoft Lumia smartphones running Windows Phone 8 and 8.1 would receive updates to 10, but following the official unveiling, Microsoft reiterated and stated that they were targeting the "majority" of Lumia phones, and that not all phones would receive the update or support all of its features.[3] In February 2015, Joe Belfiore stated that Microsoft was "working on" a version of 10 for low-end devices with 512 MB of RAM, including the Nokia Lumia 520—a model which represents 23.8% of all Windows Phone devices sold.[18] An "Insider" program, similarly to one adopted for the PC version of Windows 10,[19] will be used to provide a public beta version of Windows 10 Mobile for selected devices.[18]" I had a source by WMPowerUser (or maybe WinBeta) but this one has been replaced by another source ¿is it an unreliable source or is it considered a biased source? I'm asking so I won't use them in the future on this article as I know that Microsoft Fanboys and Fanboys can be considered "proxies" of the "primary source" (this in this case being the Microsoft Corporation) and I do not wish to damage the reliability of this page by placing "biased" sources and/or references to this page which would be counter-productive, ¿or was it related to the fact that most of the article relied on a Twitter Tweet post to confirm that the Nokia Lumia 520 and various other devices would get the upgrade/update? ¿what kind of sources are welcome and what kind of sources are unwelcome here? thank you in advance, further I wonder if this should be placed under "release", it's the fact that "history" has been changed to "development" that it no longer should be placed there, but "release" should probably be more about the official release which has not (yet) happened, but if that's the style you're going for I won't bother you for using it as it should be "well-organized" and remain "readable". Anyhow I'll try to find additional non pro-Microsoft sources such as the Verge and Ars Technica rather than WinBeta, Microsoft-News, Windows Mobile PowerUser, Windows Central, Windows Phone Central, and many others such as Techrum.vn, WindowsBlogItalia, Windows Phone Dang, you get the picture, ¿what if no other source can verify this are they automatically then "unreliable sources" or could I use them in that case?
 * Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC) (formerly 86.81.201.94)
 * I tend to favor sites that are less of a blog (and I usually avoid WinBeta because the name of the site itself screams "rumors and speculation"). Plus, the source also iterated that his statement was not certain. ViperSnake151   Talk  17:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, then I'll make sure that no source I'll use is "a blog" or "blog-like", and surprisingly WinBeta rarely posts rumours without first placing something in ALL-CAPS as "RUMOUR", but still I'll avoid using it on this page in the future.
 * Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC) (formerly 86.81.201.94)
 * P.S. ¿why did you respond with "keep this line in lead" after I wrote "Moved line over the Lumia-specific update to "development" section as it does not cover the general preceding operating system (neglecting Samsung, HTC, Karbonn, Etc.) and was a repetition of the earlier mention WP8.1 upgrade." I didn't remove it because I wanted to remove any information regarding the upgrade/update, I moved it because the original statement wasn't O.E.M. neutral, I understand that Microsoft's own mobile devices unit (Microsoft Mobile Oy) has some level of privilege, but I solely moved it somewhere else because it omitted the likes of Samsung, H.T.C. and other Windows Phone manufacturers that will see their devices upgrade to Windows 10, what you later wrote was correct and so I had absolutely no intent of removing it as it was clearly O.E.M.-neutral, anyhow I'm glad we've come to an understanding.
 * Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC) (formerly 86.81.201.94)

@Everyone can we please wait for the official Windows Insider preview of Windows 10 (Mobile) to come out before we'll war over anything more in this article, all the information we have right now is mostly speculation, and most features will be divided over several updates anyhow, think of all the things that were announced at the January 21st event for P.C.'s that have only been added now, so please wait until y'all edit war again. Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC) (formerly 86.81.201.94)

Official Microsoft video
So Joe Belfiore released an official video and now the Windows 10 preview is out, the only problem is that the branding was confusing, for example the name of the video was Windows 10 for Phones, then if you can hear anything else through his constant usage of the words "Universal Apps" he says Windows 10 for phones and small tablets and ends with Windows 10 for phones and small devices, the only thing consistent about the branding is the fact that it's called "Windows 10" so maybe the name Windows 10 (Mobile) may be the best we can go with, that aside I suggest that we'll make the Wikitable completely consistent with the features in the technical preview and will place the announced (and presently listed features) above in the fashion of Microsoft's Xbox One system software, in this article there are 2 sections you have § "History of updates" and § "Planned upgrades" in "Planned upgrades" all future features (those that were announced) are present, and in the "History of updates" those that are already present for the Microsoft Xbox One are listed, ¿does anyone agree? Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC) (formerly 86.81.201.94)


 * You're right, Namlong618. News have broken that the Windows 10 mobile preview is official and available for certain devices. Once we look at its About screen we will know the official name of the OS, and thus the name this article should go by. &#60;&#60;&#60; SOME GADGET GEEK &#62;&#62;&#62; (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yep, I saw that in your (now removed) "We have a winner!" section, one thing I want to make clear to all the editors is that we can have our cakes and eat them too by basing the update history section on the Xbox One's model of changelogs, we can simply re-list everything that is not in the technical preview above the wikitable until it's subsequently released in an update, this way we won't have to go through edit-warring and both sides (as I'm almost certain that ViperSnake would want to remove all non-included "universal apps" and other content that are not in the preview, and then we'll see User931 revert, and V.S. will revert U.931, so we should best follow the Xbox One's example and re-list all not-included but officially announced features such as the Microsoft Outlook Calendar and "Project Spartan" in the "Planned upgrades" section above/below the Wikitable, I hope that others will agree with this and to find the model of reference please go to Xbox One system software to see how it looks there.
 * Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC) (formerly 86.81.201.94)


 * I think that's a great idea, the same can probably happen on the other W10 page. I am also in favor of renaming the article to what is shown on the about page. NeoGeneric (talk) 03:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Ladies & Gentlemen... we have a problem the fact is that it states "Windows 10 Technical Preview for Phones" so we can go with the official name "Windows 10" and place either "(Mobile)" or "for phones" next to it. It just confirmed what we already knew, that it's going to be branded Windows 10. --Namlong618 (talk) 08:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC) (formerly 86.81.201.94)


 * Hi Namlong, I think your idea is great. It would save time and effort to just move planned features to features when they are released, and also be good information for people to see what features are planned. But I think it would be better to have it in the table under "version unknown", then the features will be "table-ready" and can just be moved to the version where they are implemented. Having the features in the article under a paragraph as you've suggested or especially if it's merged with features will just result in people rewriting them to fit better in article format and then it requires double work to make them fit in the table again. Remember the Xbox One system software article is just a version history page so less risk of people rewriting the planned features in a more article form. About naming, as long as what is after Windows 10 is in brackets i'm happy. I don't think we will know the complete finalized branding until fall. But most likely it's just Windows 10 as we've said from the beginning, with probably some internal codename for mobile version, and "phones and small tablets" when talking about it in public as in the video by Joe Belfiore. User:User931 1534, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikitable reform proposal
Here is a rough draft of the reforms I suggest for the update table/version history from the Xbox school of changelogs. For the ease of readability I've removed all references from this draft (as this is only designed to serve as an example), also note that I did read several articles on it, but I don't know which features are and aren't in, so if I'm wrong PLEASE correct me.

Future upgrades (this part could possibly merged with Features)

Here shall be a list of already announced, but not (yet) implemented features.


 * Skype integration for messaging and calls. Conversations and contacts can be synced with Messaging app on Windows 10 on PC.
 * New rendering engine hosted in Internet Explorer with "Spartan" replacing IE in later previews."
 * Standard camera app changed to match functionality and appearance of Lumia Camera app.
 * Sound recording app added.
 * "Universal" Music app with OneDrive syncing of music and playlists.
 * "Universal" Office for Windows 10, including Excel, OneNote, Outlook, PowerPoint, and Word
 * "Universal" Maps app with Here Maps data, Cortana integration, turn-by-turn navigation.
 * "Universal" People app which aggregates people across social networks and is synced with Windows 10 devices.
 * Bluetooth Message Access Profile
 * Bluetooth Human Interface Device Profile 1.1
 * Bluetooth HID over Generic Attribute Profile
 * Absolute Volume Control (part of AVRCP)

Version history

This is the vision I have taken from the Microsoft Xbox One operating system's page, if anyone with more expertise on the subject would please split it I'll be very grateful, thank you in advance. Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC) (formerly 86.81.201.94)


 * Good, but I think it would be better to have it in the table under "version unknown", then the features will be "table-ready" and can just be moved to the version where they are implemented. Having the features in the article under a paragraph as you've suggested or especially if it's merged with features will just result in people rewriting them to fit better in article format and then it requires double work to make them fit in the table again. Remember the Xbox One system software article is just a version history page so less risk of people rewriting the planned features in a more article form. New rendering engine is there already. I think maps and music apps as well but could be wrong. User:User931 15:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Belgophones & Rings
Excuse me everyone for creating yet another section (as I've already created ½ of the ones on this page, and I really don't want to bloat up the talk page, so I'll compress 2 different subjects that are related into one section) but recently I've been reading the Belgophone page (Windows 10 voor telefoons) and on their talk page the only objection there is the fact that it actually uses a Dutch name for the page while the rest of all the Microsoft Windows articles have Anglophone names, to the fact that Windows 10 is a member of the Microsoft Windows family there is no objection the Windows Phone page and it even states that Windows 10 is the successor of Windows Phone, further in the Microsoft Windows template it's linked as "Windows 10 (Telefoons)" "(Windows 10 (Phones))", so I think that our original "Windows 10 (Mobile)" isn't as far-fetched as some claim, though by comparison the Persian version of Wikipedia lists this article as "Windows Phone 10" so maybe there's less merit to my argument than I first envisioned.

Anyhow the Belgophone page further contains a table about so-called "rings", now I can't use Belgophone sources on an Anglophone page so here is a roughly translated (it's in the middle of the night here, I won't do too much trouble now) version of the template as it appears in the Dutch page.

Fun fact: the "Canary Ring" is named after the fact that coal miners would first bring a cage with a canary to test if there were dangerous gasses that could harm them, if the canary were to die the shaft would be deemed "unsafe".

I don't know if this ring claim holds water, I haven't implemented it yet as I can't find any reliable sources to verify it. Thank you for taking the time to read this. Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC) (formerly 86.81.201.94)

I found the official blog post containing the said information about the update rings http://blogs.windows.com/bloggingwindows/2014/10/21/were-rolling-out-our-first-new-build-to-the-windows-insider-program/ and here is the diagram from within the blog http://az648995.vo.msecnd.net/win/2014/10/Ring1.png I think that if this were to be included, it should be discussed on the other Windows 10 page. NeoGeneric (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, and I will. Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 08:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC) (formerly 86.81.201.94)


 * Is this information really relevant? User:User931 18:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * As it's still in a technical preview I'd say it is, as there isn't a separate Windows Insider page, nor a version history page I'd say it's more relevant as the ever-changing list of supported devices, and updates will come in at different speeds for different Windows Insiders, otherwise I could move the content to a new Windows Insider page (or maybe it's already a page and RaviC just redirected it to another page as they always do when a new Microsoft product/service is created making it impossible to get relevant information), but then again Wikipedia is filled with stubs that sometimes contain ½ sentences, so I'll create a new Windows Insider page now and move the content.
 * Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC) (formerly 86.81.201.94)


 * Notice moved all "irrelevant" information to the Windows Insider page, also @User931 I think that comparing the issue of if Windows 10 should be considered a version of Windows Phone or Windows we should be able to see how Wikipedia has done it in other languages, if the Belgophone Wikipedia did it I think we could also do it, but then again if the Persophone Wikipedia calls it "Windows Phone 10" that argument loses validity, but still the Dutch-language page is better sourced, contains more information, and doesn't try to sell it off as a piece of "Nokia Software" and includes odd pieces of information regarding Nokia that aren't present in any other language, but still I think we could use the Belgophone page as an argument for making Windows 10 a version of Microsoft Windows over a version of Windows Phone. Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 10:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC) (formerly 86.81.201.94)

Mediation rejected
The request for mediation put forth by have been retroactively rejected by the committee, so now it stands unclear where we should go with this page, Template:Microsoft Windows Family and Template:Microsoft Windows as any changes will be immediately reverted by both parties it's time we should have another discussion about it, seeing how since the operating system has been officially released in preview form our knowledge has also increased about how it functions (though little has been declared about the internals), and to ViperSnake's wish there are more active people on this page now so maybe they'll have the multiple perspectives they've wished for. I hope that we can come to a peaceful agreement this time. Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 07:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC) (formerly 86.81.201.94)
 * But then again with time more will be revealed about the Operating System(s), so any decisions we'll make today might backfire in our faces, so we probably don't need another useless flame-war as it might be endless as different people use different standards and at present all respective parties are working together over improving the articles as opposed to reverting each other and devolving into fracas. Anyhow articles thrive with civility and though branding might be considered important by one part, another party might look at from what it was evolved, I'd say we could better wait for the official release.
 * Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Another possible name...
A slide from a WinHEC presentation about upgrade paths refers to this identity crisis-laden mobile operating system as "Windows Mobile 10". ViperSnake151  Talk  16:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, I saw it too, I was going to write a section on it, now this will be confusing here on Wikipedia with the present Windows Mobile articles, L.O.L. Further confirmation that we should just wait for the final release before we can be absolutely certain.
 * Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC) (Alternatively NamLong618)

"Universal" applications have been rebranded...
As reported here by WinBeta "Universal" applications have been renamed to simply "Windows Applications", I do not suggest to retro-actively remove their monikers from prior releases, but as time progresses the new name should be applied, so I suggest keeping the name in the first release of the technical preview of Windows 10, but using the new moniker for future releases. Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 08:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC) (Alternatively NamLong618)


 * How strange it is for a perfectly meaningful name to be fixed in favor of a generic term that does not completely describe the full nature of the application. But should we begin using this "new" name in our article, might it be better to wait for some more reliable sources to cite first? NeoWin might not be as reputable as familiar household names such as Mashable, Engadget, and The Verge. &#60;&#60;&#60; SOME GADGET GEEK &#62;&#62;&#62; (talk) 11:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No, Windows apps. ViperSnake151   Talk  14:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I see that someone has also retroactively renamed "Universal" apps as "Windows apps", I suggested that we would only do this for new content as calling them "Universal" apps would actually be more contemporarily accurate, I shan't revert these edits but I just wonder why it would make sense to retroactively rename these, Microsoft may have retroactively renamed various things in the past, but here on Wikipedia we usually go by contemporary names as opposed to immediately rebranding them to what they are called now, and until Windows 10 is officially launched they'll still remain "Universal" apps, so I'd personally go for a 2-way model where we keep the name for the older content and implement the new name when new Windows applications are launched. Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC) (Alternatively NamLong618)

"Windows 10 Mobile" is confirmed
Hi.

I ran into the following:

Aren't these enough to rename the article Windows 10 Mobile?

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course. You'll have to get admin help to swap the article with the redirect page while preserving the Talk page. heat_fan1 (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * This is the official link *
 * and I would say it's a bit more complicated since the mobile variant is now marketed as an edition of Windows 10, just as home and pro, and there is also a Mobile Enterprise edition. If this page also should cover the Mobile Enterprise edition it would be more appropriate to have the article named as it is (mobile). However, this again brings up the question if this article should be merged with the Windows 10 article, but possibly have a separate version history for mobile specific changes. User:User931 19:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Relations between W10M and W10ME is like the relations between WP8 and Windows Embedded 8 Handheld but WP8's article name do not take the existence of WE8H into account.C933103 (talk) 04:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 14 May 2015

 * 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. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Windows 10 (mobile) → Windows 10 Mobile – Name is now official per Microsoft press statement. Since this was the most likely rumored name even before official confirmation, there should have never been discussion to not call it that in the first place imho. After this move we can discuss whether this is really something completely different from the older versions of Windows Mobile (2000-6.5) and if a "not to be confused tag" is justified. I started that discussion on the Windows Mobile talk page. PizzaMan (♨♨) 07:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed with the name change, but given in the content of Microsoft's mixed messages at the time we made the right decision as Microsoft did in fact just brand it as Windows 10 and nothing else at the time, the official name has only recently been revealed so the earlier name change was 100% justified in the context as "Windows 10 Mobile" at the time was gazing in a crystal ball, but now that we know we should immediately change the name to Windows 10 Mobile.
 * Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 07:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC) (Alternatively )
 * I understand your reasons behind using Windows 10 (mobile), but to me that's equally as much crystal ball gazing, except that crystal ball was a little less good at it's job. PizzaMan (♨♨) 08:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really, the only name known at the time was Windows 10, it was the logical thing to do, and would be considered less crystal ball gazing as it was the "correct name" at the time, but I still think that we should rename it to the original name A.S.A.P.
 * Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 08:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC) (Alternatively )


 * Disagree with name change As I've written above, the mobile variant is now marketed as an edition of Windows 10, just as Home and Pro, and there is also a Mobile Enterprise edition. If this article intends to also cover the Mobile Enterprise edition it would be more appropriate to have the article named as it is (mobile). However, this again brings up the question if this article should be merged with the Windows 10 article (since the Home and Pro editions etc don't have separate articles) but possibly have a separate version history for mobile specific changes. User:User931 10:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In the RfC above there was clearly a majority consensus for Windows 10 Mobile if that name became official. It is now official. I see your arguments but i don't object to lumping the mobile enterprise version under this page with the general title of Windows 10 Mobile. Windows 10 Mobile enterprise is also a Windows 10 Mobile version. PizzaMan (♨♨) 02:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What was said before doesn't really matter now when there is new info from Microsoft and there are two Mobile editions of W10.User:User931 08:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd argue that the information on the Windows 10 Mobile Enterprise edition would probably be implemented in the Windows 10 editions article similar to how Windows 7 Pro, and the Windows XP Tablet PC edition articles are both a part of their respective Windows [name] editions articles.
 * Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC) (Alternatively )


 * I'd be cautious - as Microsoft may release the actual product with a different name than as detailed above and we don't want to have to go through this RM process again. It'd be safer to check an official PR before proceeding further. &#60;&#60;&#60; SOME GADGET GEEK &#62;&#62;&#62; (talk) 02:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if my words weren't clear, but this rename request was because ms just released an official statement on it. PizzaMan (♨♨) 23:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support: Are we really distrusting Microsoft here? ViperSnake151   Talk  23:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support name change Win10Mobile Enterprise have little thing to do with W10M and is also separate product line with the focus and what people care about WIN10ME are usually different from W10M. And judging from past history of enterprises mobile OS released by MS, that is also true.C933103 (talk) 04:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point. I've had other WP editors tell me time and again that it doesn't matter what people actually visit a WP page for and what information they actually come looking for, but i agree that should weigh heavy in our decisions and in this case, while the software may be similar, the target audience is very different. PizzaMan (♨♨) 06:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy support as the current article title is in direct violation of WP:TITLE. Indeed, per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS the result of this RfC should not depend on the opinions expressed here at all. Mdrnpndr (talk) 14:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. Hi. In addition to what the nominator said, I clearly see editors crave a better alternative than "Windows 10 (mobile)" which has an awkward parenthetical classifier and "Windows 10" alone which does not intuitively sets it apart from Windows 10. "Windows 10 Mobile" is a perfect choice because that's how English language is used: Metonymy. Actually, the sources that I posted above show that it is actually being used this way. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2015 (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.