Jump to content

Talk:Microsoft Mobile/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Employee number vandalism

I don't know the actual number of Microsoft Mobile Oy's employees, but for some reason this article has stated the entire Human (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) species as their employees, could someone with the correct numbers please fix it, thank you in advance. --86.81.201.94 (talk) 10:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Wut?

Wait, I'm confused. Wasn't only 'post-Microsoft acquisition' information supposed to be on this page and everything in history on the Nokia page? --G&CP (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Some prior background stuff about how they moved to WP is useful.. I agree that the Online Services section shouldn't be here, especially since most of these services were actually discontinued long before the acquisition. --RaviC (talk) 07:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Nokia MixRadio is an online service that is part of Microsoft Mobile though, so that shouldn't have been removed. --87.208.17.6 (talk) 09:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I added those online services when this page was first created because someone renamed the article to Nokia Devices & Services so at the time it made sense, but then someone renamed the article back and everything was removed (at the time I didn't know how to copy the sources so I just copy-pasta'd it into the Nokia products list page with sources appearing as [53] [41]), but that still doesn't take away the fact that Microsoft bought Nokia's online services too, and most of these are still supported today, in fact the Ovi Store won't be closed until March 2015, so it's a stupid argument to remove it from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namlong618 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Value judgement of Lumia series

"The Lumia series is also the most innovative smartphone Lineup much better than Samsung Galaxy, Apple iPhone, or Sony Xperia series." ← This is an unsubstantiated value judgement, I believe this should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.11.8.245 (talk) 12:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

ONline services and other removal of content close to vandalism

Lumia Beta apps, the messaging service, the Ovi Store, and MixRadio are factually still being produced by Microsoft mobile, these services have been DEPRECIATED not discontinued, whomever keeps removing them needs to go to the talk page before doing it again, I will revert these removals and I'll add relevant sources to state that Microsoft will support some (Lumia Beta Apps), sell another (MixRadio), and has phased out others while still supporting them (Ovi Store and the Messaging service). Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Let me be clearer, it's not just the removal of online services, literally every content that's not "present" Wikipedia is not a list of presently produced products. Microsoft Mobile Oy once produced Nokia X devices, and they maintain and sell as well as support all other Nokia devices so the content should not be removed from this article on the basis of it not being produced today, that's not how Wikipedia works, if we'd follow that same logic we should remove any reference to Windows XP from the Microsoft article. Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: the only reason the ONline Services were in the list of Nokia products in the first place was because RaviC removed all of them and at the time I had no idea how to edit past versions of an article so just copy-pasta'd them into a later version and then copy-pasta'd ALL old ones minus the sources and references into the list of Nokia articles, and I placed all of them here because someone moved this page to "Nokia Devices & Services" so it would've made sense at the time, but that doesn't take away that the section is still relevant to this article as Microsoft Mobile Oy does have online services, and it might even need some expansion as many "Lumia" branded applications have online services, and several other online services even have gotten the Microsoft rebrand such as Microsoft Math, Spartan Nation, and Microsoft Data Gathering. Please don't remove relevant sections, I have removed the Logo part as it was clearly a duplicate of the main Microsoft article's, but all other parts have been and will always be relevant to Microsoft Mobile Oy, such as Nokia Asha, Nokia X, and S40, Microsoft Mobile Oy may no longer make new versions, but they still sell and support older versions, and all Operating Systems are still officially supported by Microsoft + Microsoft Mobile Oy. Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Faulty Nokia Asha claim.

Someone has barred any re-introduction of the Asha line for a few reasons, one of these is that they were supposedly only produced in the Chennai plant, this is not true they were also produced in China by factories now owned by Microsoft Mobile Oy, also Microsoft does still own and sell them and they own all the rights to the Asha brand (yes, Steve Ballmer bought all the rights to Nokia's phone division knowing that Microsoft won't ever sell them), as for the Nokia Asha O.S. Microsoft still owns and supports it, it won't be officially discontinued in a long time, in fact it's just under "maintenance mode" which means that it's in the process of being superseded, but is still wholly owned and operated by Microsoft Mobile Oy.

So please don't remove the Nokia Asha and S40 sections from the article without first challenging this argument in the talk section first, this article has been the subject of senseless deletion for too long and I won't just stand by and watch how relevant content is being deleted from this page for the most trivial of reasons such as the claim because Microsoft Mobile Oy no longer produces it today then it shouldn't be in the article, or how someone had to split a small section of this article into its own article because it kept being deleted, valuable information was lost from Wikipedia and I had to restore it all, products is for products that have actually been made and produced under Microsoft Mobile Oy, not just what Microsoft bought, one can make the argument that because Microsoft bought all of Nokia's rights to Symbian, MeeGo, Mæmo, and Nokia's other platforms that they should be here using my logic (WinBeta confirmed this, as did Windows Phone Central and Windows Mobile PowerUser) but that's not true as Nokia X, Nokia Asha, and S40 phones were actually produced by Microsoft Mobile Oy, S30 is factually no longer used and has been superseded by Series 30+ and of-course Microsoft Lumia is still produced, but this doesn't mean that both sections only deserve one sentence, these sections exist to be introductory, not just "hé, this exists, click on the link above", please refrain from removing content relevant to the article unless it bears no relationship with Microsoft Mobile Oy and/or Microsoft Lumia.

Note: Microsoft Mobile Oy is just a legal body, it's barely a company on its own, in fact the Microsoft Lumia division acts as much as a division within Microsoft as the Microsoft Surface division does.

Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 10:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The Logo section

The logo section does not belong in this article, as one might've noticed I've failed to mention this above as I was defending keeping relevant content in the article, but this is an irrelevant subject to the matters, in fact Microsoft Mobile Oy does not even have a logo, it's not "a real company" it's a mere legal body designed to uphold all contracts by all Nokia and Nokia-branded divisions concerning their mobile phone and digital services industry, Microsoft has absorbed this and they only use "Microsoft Mobile Oy (M.M.O.)" in terms of use, privacy statements, and contracts, the logo in the infobox does belong there as it's a division of Microsoft nonetheless, but a separate section for the Microsoft logo on a page about a legal body solely designed to handle the matters of integrating the various divisions that once belonged to Nokia should not have a section, if anyone wants to write more about Microsoft's logo please go to the Microsoft article which covers the entire history of the logo from 1975 onwards. Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits.

To User:49.200.95.3.I've noticed your sudden removal of various content on the page Microsoft Mobile, let me first clarify that the invisible line stating that Online Services should not be removed is there because of the constant vandalism of people removing the online services, further you claimed that the devices area had "too many images" but has not reached consensus on the talk page, I don't disagree with these edits, but if they are informative and relevant to the page your sense of aesthetics should not dictate how the article is laid out. You gave no justification on why you moved the Nokia Asha line below Nokia X (as it would be understandable if you'd give a good reason, there was none provided, thus seemed like a useless move). The Nokia Beta Labs page hasn't changed name, but remains the main article as the Lumia Beta Apps are an evolution of it, I don't get your edit of making sentences shorting such as the reference to Nokia Sync as it was mentioned in a reference, also this edit " though developers could no longer launch nor update them. Microsoft officially closed down the Nokia Store on the 31st of March 2015 and encouraged" is premature as it's March 5th 2015, prior to any change, the Nokia Messaging service like most things with "Nokia" in the name was renamed the Microsoft Mobile Messaging service, note how the Nokia Xpress browser was also renamed the Microsoft Mobile Xpress browser in Microsoft Mobile Oy's official terms of services, your next edit is good, and should not have been reverted, but seeing the scope of content removal this has to be manually redone, as for removing "Services are or were once a part of Microsoft Mobile Oy, Wikipedia is NOT a collection of present and up-to-date information, it's an encyclopedia, please DO NOT REMOVE THESE as they are relevant to the article." this is because of various vandals and some Spaniard removing the services section claiming that Microsoft "never" had these, which is untrue and explained in the article, "Companies of Finland" somehow moved to the end doesn't seem to make much sense and you have not made any clarifications of it (note that I'm neutral on it, and the reversion of this is purely "collateral damage"), the thumb of the marketshare of various mobile operating systems is placed on the right because it's more readable in that manner, anyhow please try to write justifications on your edits the next time, and try to ask for consensus when making major changes such as removing all the images of non-present device ranges (which should not be named former devices as "devices" is an ambiguous term, while "hardware lines" refers to specific types of devices, in "former devices" this would include individual devices, as well as accessories). Anyhow I hope you'll understand now why I'm reaching out to you. Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 14:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC) (alternatively Namlong618)

Concerning the template in the history section.

I understand that most of Microsoft Mobiles part is written from Nokia's P.O.V. which is understandable as it's a part of Nokia until it was sold, but most parts concerning Microsoft are mostly contained in the Windows Phone article which mostly talks about device sales in terms of the operating system's success, the Motorola Mobility page barely contains any information about Google for the same reasons, it's about Nokia's devices and services in a light to provide background to why they became a part of Microsoft, so the Nokia content is completely relevant, it should contain more Microsoft related information, but the Nokia parts give background to the entire acquisition. Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 07:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC) (Alternatively Namlong618)

Though this article is too Nokia-centric as it mentions the word Nokia 364 times, and Microsoft 264 times (08 D. 04 M. 2015 A.) despite being called Microsoft Mobile, but there is a justification for it as it's Nokia's former devices and services groups.
Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 09:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC) (Alternatively Namlong618)

Symbian content.

Symbian and other Nokia content is relevant on Microsoft Mobile due to the fact that it gives a background to the creation of Microsoft Mobile and why Nokia fell, this isn't explored as deeply on the Nokia page because Microsoft Mobile is specifically about the history between Nokia and Microsoft and why Nokia chose Windows Phone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.81.201.94 (talk) 09:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC) --86.81.201.94 (talk) 09:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Please stop removing the "Oy" from "Microsoft Mobile Oy"

During the past year several IP addresses whose origin seem to be from the same region in India have repeatedly removed the "Oy" from "Microsoft Mobile Oy" in the infobox, and as is typical with this user most removal of content has been based on either a false belief in irrelevancy or with no explanation at all. I have restored the "Oy" and to end this once and for all (hopefully) I will cite several Wikipedia articles where the infobox displays the judicial name of the company, YouTube (YouTube, LLC), IBM (International Business Machines Corporation), Vimeo (Vimeo, LLC), IAC (company) (IAC/InterActiveCorp), and so on. Several sources have already listed Microsoft Mobile as "Microsoft Mobile Oy" in the page, and it's also the former name of this article for when it was first created, so anyone who visits this page, please do not remove the "Oy" from "Microsoft Mobile Oy", I've checked the histories of most corporate articles and the removal of it is unique to this page which is why I have to write this. --42.113.73.160 (talk) 00:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Updating microsoft mobile article to reflect its a division , not a company.

I think we should update Microsoft Mobile article to reflect that it is division of Microsoft, not a company. Reason: Microsoft Mobile barely functions as a seperate company. It functions in a way more close to a division.

Other divisions of Microsoft, like Microsoft Garage etc are written in division style.

Please start a discussion on the same.

144.36.231.77 (talk) 08:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I Agree, but what should be changed? So far the content of the article shielas purely of the products presently or formerly produced by this division, though I would suggest basically writing down further advancements in the Microsoft Lumia as Microsoft themselves refer to their hardware mobile telephony unit as Microsoft Lumia, and the Series 30+ article could and should discuss the developments in what's left of the feature phones, but so far this article doesn't go into too much details and when it refers to the division it mostly discusses the integration of former Nokia assets into Microsoft, as they has now happened I think that we should probably continue to write on the Lumia article about Microsoft smartphones, and profits and sales of those already have a separate section there so I don't see much use for Microsoft Mobile up until the point of integration, as the introduction states it's merely a legal body representing everything that ever was Nokia's telephone, and telephone-related units, Microsoft Mobile also isn't a manufacturer anymore as Microsoft has confirmed that they'll outsource it to Foxconn, Prgatron, Flextronics, Etc. and Microsoft Mobile Oy now only exists as a legal body since the Lumia, Surface and other device divisions are one now, personally I don't think that this article needs to be rewritten but rather that the future developments of it should be on the Lumia and S30+ articles as they can go into more details and let this page stand as an introduction for those articles and explain the background of why Microsoft acquired Nokia's business and how it was integrated. --1.55.1.190 (talk) 12:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Competitors section

According to this source Microsoft Mobile Oy is the 4th largest mobile telephone maker, and 3rd just until a few days ago (at the time the competitors section was removed), the business Microsoft Mobile Oy is in is not just smartphones it's mobile communications equipment. --Hoang the Hoangest (talk) 02:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Microsoft Mobile is a division? a company? or just a Wikipedia article

1.In recent edits to this article, few have claimed that its a division, its a company, its just a legal body or just a Wikipedia article.

2. There are already articles on Microsoft Lumia and Nokia 3 digit series.

3. This article started out by copying a section from Nokia article ( now that section belongs to History of Nokia).

4. Microsoft surface, surface pro and surface hub are all manufactured by Surface but no mention of any Surface as a division article. Also Bing , Bing ads are designed by Bing only, but again no Bing division article. I hope this point is clear.

4. Should this article even exist? Shouldn't it be deleted.

Please wiki brothers help in solving the dilemma.

170.248.189.79 (talk) 06:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

This article should not be deleted as this article touches on a more detailed look of the corporate history between Microsoft and Nokia and the background as to why these divisions, the hardware, and software have been sold to Microsoft and their history and the transition

afterwards, the Microsoft Lumia and Nokia 3-digit Series articles are solely about the hardware and predate the Microsoft Mobile Oy article, even though this was originally copied from Nokia and the History of Nokia, Nokia, as a company has gone a different road and this article contains plenty of information about the post-merger and what happened to non-Lumia and non-feature phone related businesses under Microsoft, the entire idea of deleting this article is not only preposterous, it's close to vandalism. This article should exist and in its present form is quite clear and judging from the fact that this article has received quite a high rating while the other articles you're mentioning haven't would basically be throwing away a quality article in favour of inferior less informative and sometimes even unrelated content. --58.187.162.7 (talk) 12:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Let me also answer the question as to what "Microsoft Mobile (Oy)" really is, it's a legal entity that contains the former Nokia software and hardware divisions, but over time these divisions have been moved around Microsoft so I'd say that there shouldn't really be made many future additions to much of the content of this article unless it concerns the legal content of Microsoft's former Nokia design patents, Microsoft's Symbian-related and other "historic Nokia" patents and the background as to why Microsoft uses Nokia branded devices and related sales, but generally speaking this article is about more than "just hardware", and "Microsoft Mobile" may not exactly be "one division" (as Microsoft Lumia is now under Panos Panay, and the Lumia Camera is now the stock camera in Windows 10, and Nokia Conference is now a part of the Microsoft Garage, so Microsoft has successfully dissected "Nokia" into its own divisions from the Windows OS developers to the same people who make and design the Surface, Band, and HoloLens devices), but as a legal entity it still exists, and Microsoft reported its phone hardware sales until 2015 as "Microsoft Mobile", though over time the definition has eroded it is still a historic Microsoft entity, but I wouldn't be quick to change all the "is"es into "was" in this article either, but the idea that this article should be merged with the hardware-related articles is simply wrong, Motorola Mobility has also been basically folded into Lenovo's hardware divisions, yet the article still exists separately and does so for a reason, it 1. gives historic precedent, 2. background, 3. corporate information, 4. detailed information of sales figures as to superficial ones (see Microsoft Lumia#Sales), and 5. covers more than just 2 hardware divisions, Microsoft Mobile Oy remained the manufacturer of ALL of Nokia's older devices including Nokia Asha, Nokia X, and even older SXX series, and all of this is mentioned in this article and would be irrelevant to mention in both Microsoft Lumia and the Nokia 3-digit Series articles. --58.187.162.7 (talk) 12:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Also to finish my replies off, as you did in the past by redirecting this article to the Microsoft Lumia article you're not merging the content (WP:MERGE) you're simply deleting an entire article and all its associated content without much reason, you're not moving the history, and general information to Microsoft Lumia (where more than half of this would be both irrelevant and out-of-context), you're simply deleting it, and I could've supported any moving and preservation, but simply deleting an article because something isn't as clear today as it was yesterday is simply bad, do not ever just delete a lot of content because some of it is wrong, improve where it's wrong, like in the article Microsoft engineering divisions you removed whole sections because some other sections were either outdated or inaccurate, this has been fixed but one shouldn't revert whole edits, Wikipedia is about everyone collaborating with each other, not opposing each other for emotional reasons (let unprofessional editors like ViperSnake do that, who reverted entire sections of this article because they disliked a single edit). Refrain from deleting a lot content if it's not necessary and Microsoft Mobile as an article should exist, even though over time its divisions have been reshuffled into Microsoft, it still existed and on paper still exists. --58.187.162.7 (talk) 12:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
On point 4, I think that this should be addressed independently, Bing Ads as a division was not originally solely Bing, it used to be MSN branded before that, and was created from several mergers by Microsoft, Bing used to be MSN Search, as for the Surface Pro and Surface Hub, yes they are, the article on both the Microsoft Surface division and the Microsoft Surface hardware is Microsoft Surface, the Microsoft Surface article also goes about plenty of its divisions' changes, and history, the reason why this isn't the case for this article is because Microsoft Mobile wasn't a single hardware division, ever. Microsoft mobile was a collection of millions of Nokia.com websites, Nokia Lumia, Nokia Asha, Nokia X, Nokia feature phone, Nokia [insert ANY other device or random number and/or letters here], Etc. and Nokia software and apps (these were later moved to another article). Bing is a brand, Surface is also mostly a brand (like Lumia, the same people who make Lumia smartphones and phablets make Surface devices), and things get assigned the "Bing" brand all the time (MSN Health & Fitness, MSN News, MSN Travel, MSN Food & Drink, MSN Money, and MSN Sports were all Bing-branded at one time, Microsoft Pulse used to be Bing branded, Bing Health is actually made by the same people who make the Microsoft HealthVault, and the list goes on and on, Bing was always a part of Microsoft, Microsoft Mobile Oy was acquired from another company, these things are hardly comparable). --58.187.162.7 (talk) 13:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
More on point 4, just because those other articles don't have that doesn't mean that you shouldn't create it yourself, this is Wikipedia go to those articles, find sources and reference them and write more about their corporate history and structure yourself, everyone is free to edit and just because Microsoft Mobile Oy has something that Microsoft Surface is missing doesn't mean that we should delete something because one article doesn't have it, you should create something because it's "missing" on the other article. --58.187.162.7 (talk) 13:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't delete content

For some reason over the past few years several users with IP addresses all coming from India have been systematically deleting content in this article simply because it was "not relevant" after a product was discontinued or deprecated by Microsoft, if Wikipedia would go by this user's example we wouldn't have an article on the Roman Empire, Dutch East Indies, or Zune for that matter, please refrain from calling something "irrelevant" simply because it no longer exists today, this goes for all Wikipedia articles but somehow has to be specifically said about former Nokia articles, specifically the ones relating to Microsoft Mobile Oy (this one). --58.187.161.153 (talk) 09:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Please do not remove former products

Literally every Wikipedia page like this lists former products, this also includes Sony Mobile, and Motorola Mobility, Etc. so please refrain from removing discontinued products especially when they're referred to as discontinued in the text thus are both relevant in the section and not confusing to the WP:READER.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Before another editor archives this let's not forget that this happened recently, so maybe not all concerned users have read this. I can assume that 180.188.229.6, so 170.248.189.70 if you're reading this give 180.188.229.6 some time to respond, these Indian I.P. editors are notorious for removing relevant content without any reason so please be patient with these people.
Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

"Coloud" and "Oy"

Regarding "Coloud" Coloud is the name of a company that manufactures the earpieces for Lumia devices, the name is not a misspelling, it's deliberate. So please stop "fixing" this "typo".

Regarding "Oy" Just like on the YouTube article the infobox mentions "YouTube, LLC", "Oy" is a Finnish term that also roughly translates as "Limited Liability Company/Corporation", and since Microsoft Mobile Oy is headquartered in Finland this is the name they use formally on documents. So please stop removing this from the infobox, it's not "cleaning up", and it's not "redundant".

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 09:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Also regarding "Oy", the page was originally called "Microsoft Mobile Oy" because of this fact, and it was the only name formally announced before being abbreviated to simply/just "Microsoft Mobile", this is also true for "Nokia Corporation" application programmes becoming "Microsoft Mobile Oy" application programmes, before getting "Microsoft Mobile" as the name of their publisher.
Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
In Wikipedia, we never add the company type to the title unless for disambiguation. So, Microsoft Corp., Google Inc., Yahoo Inc., Adobe Systems Inc. are all written Microsoft, Google, Yahoo!, and Adobe Systems. An example of disambiguation is Nero AG because Nero is already taken. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
@Codename Lisa: as per WP:OTHERSTUFF it's still used in infoboxes where the name is not used in a disambiguation such as YouTube (where it's "YouTube, LLC"), Oculus VR (where it's "Oculus VR, LLC"), and Sony Mobile (where the lead opens with "Sony Mobile Communications Inc."), in this same context "Microsoft Mobile Oy" should be used to introduce this subdivision.
Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 13:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Actually, the reason is MOS:STABILITY. But if you find a manual of style or policy that says whether we should include or exclude it, that would overrule MOS:STABILITY. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
@Codename Lisa: My problem is that I can't find MOS:STABILITY at all, it doesn't seem to redirect me to a section in the current page, please find the section you refer to, my time is limited and I don't really have the time to read all of WP:MOS again.
Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 13:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
What I found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks specifically at "Mergers, partnerships, and other combined names" and at MOS:CUE#Respect for official organization names they all specify that official names be mentioned in the article themselves but that the title of the article should be WP:COMMONNAME, "Microsoft Mobile" follows this, and I do not request this paged to be WP:MOVED to "Microsoft Mobile Oy" only that the "Oy" be added in the official infobox as in the other articles I named, and various other such as Morgan Stanley which itself is mentioned in the "Trademarks" sub-article of WP:MOS.
Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 13:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
MOS:STABILITY is a single paragraph in WP:MOS. It says: " Style and formatting should be consistent [...]"
You do know that "Oy" is not part of the name, right? "Oy" is a suffix that means Osakeyhtiö, like "Inc.", "Corp.", "LLC", etc. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
@Codename Lisa: ¿And you do realise that that is exactly what I stated earlier? But I get the impression that you just read over most of what I write, anyhow go to the pages YouTube (where it specifically states "YouTube, LLC"), Oculus VR (where it's "Oculus VR, LLC"), and Sony Mobile (where the lead opens with "Sony Mobile Communications Inc.") the company titles are all mentioned at the top of the infoboxes, I never made the claim that it's the "name" of the company, but a company type as in "Inc.", "Corp.", "LLC", etc. are almost always mentioned, in fact the parent company, the Microsoft Corporation is also mentioned as so, by the same logic of MOS:STABILITY we shouldn't ever use "Microsoft Corporation" because "Microsoft" is the WP:COMMONNAME.
Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
@Codename Lisa: Further you removed a reference I put next to the name yet without replacing it with any counter-reference which usually isn't a good sign at your end, but then again you've always been a reckless reverter so it's probably fair to say that you didn't notice it, anyhow other good examples are Verizon Communications which in the infobox is referred to as Verizon Communications(,) Inc. or AOL which is AOL Inc. so we could either assume that literally every other article about a corporate entity on Wikipedia is wrong and we need to remove the "Inc." and "GmbH" and others from these articles, or you just want to place your own personal preferences here, specific Finnish examples include DICRO Oy (which has it in the name, not what I'm suggesting but since you claimed that official names are allegedly "taboo" here this would seem to contradict that statement) or VR Group which is introduced in the infobox as "VR-Yhtymä Oy" and SF Film Finland which is "SF Film Finland Oy" in the infobox.
And as per Wikipedia:Other stuff exists "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." but you've argued to me before that you personally "don't care" about this specific policy, but somehow this one speaks about consistency and MOS:STABILITY too but contradicting each other in this case, curious...
If "Oy" can't be mentioned here then I'll remove all the "Inc." and "Oy" and "GmbH" from all other companies as it would then be argued that it's against wikipolicy.
Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 08:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
One of the examples I posted had "(Finnish: [company name] Oy)" so maybe the lead could read "Microsoft Mobile (Finnish: Microsoft Mobile Oy)" but no other company does that so it would probably be the least consistent suggestion.
Anyhow I'm not sure why it can't by as in "Microsoft" Vs. "Microsoft Corporation", an official name in the lead and a common name in the rest of the article.
Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Official names

To claim that official names are "a taboo" at Wikipedia is almost a fallacy worst or a show of ignorance at best, plenty of pages mention official names next to the WP:COMMONNAME including the ones I've mentioned (Google, and YouTube), official names are still mentioned for recognition as per Wikipedia:Official names#Where there is an official name that is not the article title, and to claim that exclusively the WP:COMMONNAME is used I'd refer to how various nations are commonly called (E.G. the United Kingdom, the U.K.) as opposed to the official name (the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), Wikipedia doesn't ignore official names, it mentions them in the lead but then uses the common name in the rest of the article, this article is a fine example of this, it only uses "Microsoft Mobile Oy" in the lead and "Microsoft Mobile" in the rest of the body of the article.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

A "closer to home" example would be the Microsoft Skype Unit which uses the official Luxembourgish title in the infobox.
Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 12:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
See my reply above. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Lumia phone discontinued, Microsoft Mobile shutdown?

Microsoft in its press release has indirectly hinted at no more production of Lumia

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

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

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

Now two things may happen

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

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

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

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

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Microsoft Mobile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

The 2017 part of the history section

The current reciting of the section implies that only the aforementioned devices are supported (either the device itself or the software it runs), it should be more clarified that the support mentioned here concerns the Creators Update, even devices not eligible for the update are still supported. Wiki layes (talk) 12:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Microsoft_Mobile/Archive_1&oldid=844350011"