Talk:Surface 2

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Surface 2 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Microsoft

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft 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.MicrosoftWikipedia:WikiProject MicrosoftTemplate:WikiProject MicrosoftMicrosoft articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Computing Low‑importance

	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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force.

delete this page?

There is already article page Microsoft_Surface_2. -Abhishikt (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One option is that there could become two combined (gen 1 and gen 2) Surface Pro and Surface RT/2 pages, though the later title looks ungainly. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 06:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article, and the Surface 2 Pro should be merged with the main Surface article156.42.184.103 (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Issues? Issues section is of limited value. I have no notice of those issues, but there is a sound volume issue (to low), well documented but not solved yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.202.106.36 (talk) 00:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming page to title with "Microsoft" brand name

I read the Microsoft Surface article earlier and decided to head to the Surface 2 article. When I first read the article, I found out that the "Microsoft" brand name was missing in the article's title. So do you think the right move will be to move this article and Surface Pro 2 to a page with the "Microsoft" brand name preceding the two product names? Will it be right to move Surface 2 to Microsoft Surface 2 and Surface Pro 2 to Microsoft Surface Pro 2? Hope someone answers this in no time. Thanks. Japanese Rail Fan (talk) 07:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think of it like Microsoft Windows vs Windows 8 − the Microsoft Surface is really about the brand. Certain products like iDevices and Google Nexus series aren't commonly qualified by their manufacturer's name. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 10:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just from my observation, most articles about smartphones, tablets, laptops, and the like bear the name of the brand followed by the product name, as in Samsung Galaxy S4. OSes, on the other hand, do not bear the brand name; rather, the title begins with the name of the OS followed by the generation number or name, as in OS X instead of Mac OS X or even Apple Mac OS X, and Windows 8.1 instead of Microsoft Windows 8.1. Save for the iDevices, which do not bear the Apple brand in the article name. So how about the name of this article, which features a device? Also, I think the article name should reflect that of the predecessor. Japanese Rail Fan (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the Mac OS X page was named at the later title until Apple changed the name to OS X with Mountain Lion. Just depends on common usage. I don't know. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 08:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, which is the better decision now: To keep the Surface 2 and the Surface Pro 2 in their original title or move these two to one with a Microsoft brand name? Well, I think that the name of the brand is still important and must be included in the title name, except for rare cases. The lack of this may cause ambiguity, however. But I do agree with your point of common usage. No one would call a device an Apple iPad but simply an iPad. So consensus should reflect this pending change (or should I post this on WP:AN?) as there may be other rationales here. Japanese Rail Fan (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting multiple page moves. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Placed template below and waiting decision. Japanese Rail Fan (talk) 12:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surface 2 → Microsoft Surface 2
Surface Pro 2 → Microsoft Surface Pro 2

– As per the Microsoft Surface 2 and the Microsoft Surface Pro 2 tablets, their predecessors, the Microsoft Surface and the Microsoft Surface Pro, respectively, both have the brand name Microsoft which is the manufacturer. Compared to most articles, the latter two follow the style used by the articles for other gadgets, such as Samsung Galaxy S4 which has Samsung, the name of the manufacturer. The reason for the move is to follow the norm of other articles. Importance of the brand name is another reason. Japanese Rail Fan (talk) 12:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per WP:CONCISE. The title is concise enough. Red Slash 22:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Rename both for clarity, for consistency with other similar topics, and to avoid the ambiguity which otherwise arises from the use of generic words for specific topics. For example, I did a Google Books search for "surface 2" -"books, llc", and none of the first 20 hits mentions the Microsoft product. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per BrownHairGirl. Clarity trumps conciseness in this case. The name of the manufacturer is important to distinguish the product. Xoloz (talk) 04:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Definite articles and countable proper names

Without the "the" in front of the name it sounds like we are talking about we are talking about an uncountable thing. The definite article is used for more than just indicating a single instance. In particular since surface is a common word and tablets are countable we should use "the" beforehand when talking about the brand as a whole. For example "Microsoft manufactures the Surface 2." or "Microsoft manufactures Surface 2 tablets." but not "Microsoft manufactures Surface 2". PaleAqua (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Codename Lisa: Note also in checking sources on the Microsoft Surface ... vs the Surface ... the sources all seems to use the definite article. For example look at this article from the New York Times [1]. Notice that the only two places that don't use the definite article are where the device is being anthropomorphized. PaleAqua (talk) 07:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And because ENGVAR might be an issue here is another example, this time from the BBC [2]. Note again how the definite article is used, and the places where it is dropped such as Shipments of Surface tablets. PaleAqua (talk) 07:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PaleAqua: Hi.

Wikipedia uses the sources for verifying facts, not mimicking grammar mistakes. Example: New York Times article has written: "Microsoft’s Surface Pro 3 Isn’t [...]" and then "The Microsoft Surface Pro 3 is an [...]". We have two contradictory forms here. (Use CTRL+F to find them, if you wish.) Also, one of the common reasons of losing score in my high school was because people were fooled by their "it sounds like" feelings. They had seen a form that was correct in one context and mistook it for correct in another.

Now, consider this:

My daddy bought me an iPad and a PlayStation 9 but the iPad didn't survive the night. My daddy replaced it with a Surface 5 and since then, my biggest concern had been to make sure the Surface 5 survives its warranty.

You see? I've used "the Surface 5" and it is correct, because I am referring to something that is not unique. Definite articles can precede device names. Now look at this:

By 2012, brand names such as iPad, Surface 5 and Vodafone had risen to prominence.

In this example, iPad, Surface 5 and Vodafone are brand names, hence unique and need no definite articles. So, before you feel something is wrong about the name, think whether it is an instance, or something unique.

Now, if you look back at the New York Times article, you see that both instances of "Microsoft Surface" were same types. Either both should come with "the", or both without.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What does it have to do with sounds right? We are talking about proper names when used to refer to the brand and/or product line as a whole. A definite article is needed in this case or we need to explicitly make the usage plural "Surface tablets" when talking in the collective sense. Yes there are places where the definite article isn't needed as I noticed by highlighting the anthropomorphized, though you are correct that I missed another place where it was being used to refer to the name itself. PaleAqua (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The definite article is still not need when we are talking about the hardware line. It is grammatically the same as "Red Alert 2", in "Red Alert 2 supposedly picks up at the conclusion of the Allied campaign of the first game". Red Alert 2 is not a hardware line but still it is product name. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Part of that is where countability comes into the picture. "I have a Surface", "I have two Surfaces" vs "I have Red Alert 2"—"Surface" is a countable proper name but "Red Alert 2" is uncountable. Which is why you would have to say "I have two copies of Red Alert 2." instead of "I have two Red Alert 2." PaleAqua (talk) 07:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I pinged WT:MOS on this topic since the use of definite articles can be tricky as there are lots of different reasons when to use and when not to and wanted to make sure my understanding was correct. PaleAqua (talk) 07:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An easy way for me to remember the correct way is to think of dogs.

"Fido likes to chase cats." In this case "Fido" is a particular, unique creature and therefore does not require "the".
"The Basset Hound is a pleasant dog to own." In this, "Basset Hound" is speaking of a particular breed but not a particular one of them, therefore it requires "the".

I would treat "Surface Pro" the same way as I would treat animal breeds, therefore I would say "the Surface Pro 2" (except the example above for comparing brand names). Stepho talk 09:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I thought that animal breaeds ( along with geographic area and mountain ranges ) were covered under a slightly different exception. For example consider "The local factory manufactures the Hummer" vs "The local factory manufactures Crest". Vehicles are countable, toothpaste in uncountable but measurable. PaleAqua (talk) 10:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PaleAqua: "Part of that is where countability comes into the picture. 'I have a Surface', 'I have two Surfaces' ..." "Surface" is a trade mark and is not countable; "tablet" is a common noun and is countable: He bought two Surface tablets, not He bought two Surfaces. See MOS:TMRULES. —sroc 💬 09:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sroc: Thanks. I was being a bit two loose with that example and what part was countable. I tried to be clearer in the my comment where I showed the plural as "Surface tablets." but was struggling to get across explain exactly why the definite article should be used. The question isn't the plural bit but should the definite article be used for example in the sentences like "Surface 2 is ..." or "The Surface 2 is ..." and similarly "Microsoft manufactures Surface 2" vs "Microsoft manufactures the Surface 2." PaleAqua (talk) 09:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PaleAqua: As I say, "Surface" is a trade mark, so it should not take an article in the abstract sense (e.g., Surface 2 is a Surface-series Windows RT tablet created by Microsoft, not The Surface 2 is a Surface-series Windows RT tablet created by Microsoft. It would take an article when used as an adjective modifying a noun (e.g., the outer shell of the Surface 2 tablet or the outer shell of the Surface 2 casing), but I'm not so sure if the common noun is omitted (e.g., the outer shell of the Surface 2). (You wouldn't say the Cortana, for example.) —sroc 💬 12:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sroc: Using the definite article is rather tricky here. In Apple's products, the core words are Pod, Phone, and Pad, which are all nouns, while the prepended 'i' should be treated as a separate unit: "the i Pad". Alone, these are fine with the definite article.

But once a model number or like signifier is introduced, such as iPad 2 or iPhone SE, then the definite article should be removed.

With the Surface, 'the Surface' as a single unit is fine, while 'Surface 2' does not at all require the definite article due to noun+number, the same way as 'room 2'. If it were 'Microsoft Surface 2', then the definite article should not be added at all either.

The definite article before 'Surface 2' would incorrectly change focus from the entire unit to the number 2, and would make 'Surface' an attribute of '2', instead of '2' being an attribute of 'Surface'.

(I've been having trouble with a number of very stubborn editors who want to stick the definite article everywhere before product names.) -Mardus /talk 02:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mardus: Once again, "iPod", "iPhone", "iPad", "iPad 2" and "iPhone SE" are all trade marks, as are "Surface", "Surface 2" and so on. Whether or not a trade mark includes a number to indicate a particular model should not matter for whether to include an article. —sroc 💬 12:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Standardize all the Surface articles

All of the Surface articles are currently very incoherent.

I propose that we standardize on a common structure.

See: Talk:Microsoft Surface Pro 3#Standardize all the Surface articles Illegal Operation (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]