Talk:Microsoft Tablet PC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Speedy deletion[edit]

True, no specific product with this name ever existed, what does exist is a specific set of qualifications Microsoft wrote up that described to hardware manufacturers how to built a Tablet PC that would be supported by a specific version/extension of Windows. If this isn't clear enough from the articles content, the article should be rewritten, but the subject name is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahjongg (talkcontribs) 17:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The tag has been removed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope. These "sets of specifications" (there are verious iterations of them) never mentioned "Microsoft Tablet PC" and never really where referred to as such. So yes: the _term_ itself is bullsh1t. "Tablet PC spec by Microsoft" <> "Microsoft Tablet PC". --Jhartmann (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense, I have provided a link to Microsoft itself, [1] where they use the term "Microsoft Tablet PC" to describe products made to their specifications. Yes they often iterated their specs, they did that for their normal PC's to, but nobody is arguing that wintel PC's do not exist, or are not worth of an article because nobody is selling any Windows 3.1 based PC's anymore. Mahjongg (talk) 13:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
So what you propose the article is renamed? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Just delete it. Since when do we need seperate articles for (depricated) specs by every single company if we have articles about the product category itself and even a chapter on Microsoft-based systems specifically? => Tablet Personal Computer#Microsoft --Jhartmann (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

In which case I suggest you file an WP:AfD request. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Well this article expands on that section and in terms of the past, see WP:RECENTISM. Offering a view of the past explains the present and future.--Terrillja talk 18:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm more than happy to accept that this article needs a good amount of work, which I will do as I have the time. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how Microsoft calling it's system requirements for XP specs for future tablets can be construed as anything but nonsense.--Kevin Beckman (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC) I think this was a Bill Gates vision, should probably be on the page, much like Steve Jobs references from all he frowned at. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


So what you propose the article is renamed? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If it is to be renamed, any term that describes what it actually is about, namely Tablet PCs running Microsoft Windows. --Jhartmann (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
If you come up with a suggested new name please post a move request on WP:RM. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
What's your point? If we agree on the term, why would we need a request? --Jhartmann (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
And by the way: WP:RM is for "unregistered users and users not yet confirmed" which I am not. My suggestion: "Tablet PCs running Microsoft Windows". If there are no arguments for a better name, I'll rename (move) it tomorrow. --Jhartmann (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
And also for controversial moves, which clearly is the case given your move has already been reverted it is in this case. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
To add to that, moving it again without due process (Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_potentially_controversial_moves), would be considered vandalism and is blockable for disruption. Microsoft Tablet PC makes sense as it covers Microsoft's view/ actions related to tablet PCs. Just because they never made one themselves doesn't make it an invalid name. --Terrillja talk 20:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
First, lets make clear that the name for this article describes a term, not an actual product that carries that name! The name for this article is thus fairly arbitrary, it could have been named "Microsoft's version of the Tablet PC", or "Tablet PC (as defined by Microsoft)", I think the current term is as good as any alternative, and probably better, besides its the term Microsoft itself choose to use, see [2]. Mahjongg (talk) 23:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Tablet PC (Microsoft Windows) could work—Preceding unsigned comment added by Eraserhead1 (talkcontribs)
As long as they stay with the "Windows" monicker, yes, but if they ever go away from that, we will be back here again. Simply stating microsoft will provide more flexibility in the future.--Terrillja talk 15:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually there is something to say for using the moniker "Microsoft windows tablet PC". The whole point (IMHO) is that there are two "kinds of" tablet PC's, namely those that were strictly developed for running with Microsoft windows tablet edition (or deviate), and those which were not. In practice though I agree there is a very fuzzy line between the two, quite often its not more than the maker exclaiming its intent (the intent that its pad is intended as a Microsoft tablet PC, as hardware of -non- Microsoft Tablet PC following specifications is often still quite similar, simply due to technological restrictions in the design, as long as its based on x86 based technology. Mahjongg (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Time Machine Article[edit]

This article is from an era when tablets didn't sell, and hasn't been updated properly. It should start and end before the explosion of the ipad, yet it has a list of specs in the present tense of what a tablet is. I doubt anyone cares enough to fix. Deletion is an option (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessaryily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

    Triggered by \bno-ip\. on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 06:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Market research[edit]

A market research firm has published an apparently exhaustive study here: . Does anyone care to plunk down $4500 to share its findings with Wikipedia? IsaacAA (talk) 07:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)