Talk:Microsoft Surface/Archive 2

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

Request for More Input

Is the current name "Surface (first generation)" a viable, non-ambiguous name, or is the older name "Surface RT" better? Ians18 (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

  • This is sort of over two related issues; one is what the article for the original Microsoft Surface with Windows RT tablet should be called ( which should really be handed in a RM, though there was a no-consensus fairly recently -- and I don't think those that have been involved had changed opinions one way or the other so not sure anything other than no-consensus would happen in the immediate future. ) and the other is how to refer to it with in articles. Please see the previous albeit longly worded section for my opinions; which boil down to "Surface RT" for article name and just "Surface" where it is clear form context in prose and extra words as necessary where it is not. PaleAqua (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
    This is something like the change I would make. PaleAqua (talk) 07:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for pointing out the separate issues. Parenthetical disambiguation shouldn't appear within article text; it's only for the article title. - Josh (talk | contribs) 18:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree with PaleAqua when referred to in the main Microsoft Surface article, it should just be labeled as "Surface" instead of "Surface (first generation)". It makes sense and is logical enough to follow (for example in the table). The parts about reception need to be rewitten to include information about the rest of the Surface family. There we can state once about the first generation Surface and later to other devices like the Surface 2, Pro2, 3, and Pro 3. Ians18 (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
    • "Surface RT" is short (shorter than Surface Pro 2, for instance) and non-ambiguous. It also does not contain parenthetical disambiguation and should be used consistently throughout the article. TheHoax (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I think both names are viable and sufficiently non-ambiguous. - Josh (talk | contribs) 18:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
    • As previously pointed out PaleAqua, "Natural disambiguation is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation". If both names are viable and sufficiently non-ambiguous, then the natural disambiguation is preferred. TheHoax (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The current name should be used despite the parenthesis, though I agree that they're not ideal. The current name is, after all, the name of the product. KieranTribe 08:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • At some point, a decision needs to be reached and this discussion needs to be closed. The decision can't be stalled forever by procedures in order to maintain status quo. TheHoax (talk) 01:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't want this to be like what happens in U.S. Congress where a few people use legal procedures to hold up bills until nothing gets done. TheHoax (talk) 01:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Understandable, though RfCs tend to run up to about 30 days. We probably could request a formal close now however with the lack of new comments recently. I did add the naming and style topic to the RfC so there is a chance that some more input might come. That said I have pretty much said all I'm going to say on the topic as I think I've already given all my input/opinions, and while we might not have a local consensus I think policy and guidelines come into play here. PaleAqua (talk) 01:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think "Surface RT" is a good name, for reasons Ians18 listed above (not the actual name of the product, not immediately obvious where it fits in the succession of models as there's no Surface RT 2, etc). "Surface (first generation)" is unambiguous and seems to have the least potential for confusion or misuse, so should be used for the article title. In article text, if disambiguation is needed, phrases like "the first-generation Surface" or "the original Surface" can be used instead. Indrek (talk) 07:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Hi, Indrek (talk) and thank you for commenting. I want to note that Microsoft uses "Surface RT" name on its own website. See: [1], [2] Again, thanks. TheHoax (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
      • The official product page calls it simply "Surface", though, as does the user guide. Further, many third-party sources call it either "Surface" or "Surface with Windows RT" - see e.g. reviews by CNET, Engadget, PCMag, TrustedReviews, LaptopMag, ZDNet, The Verge... And yes, there are probably sources that use "Surface RT", but from what I can see, they're not in the majority. So then why are we seriously considering the use of a moniker that, on top of everything else, has been explicitly deprecated by Microsoft? Indrek (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
        • Indrek (talk), I am not trying to figure out which is the most "correct", but rather, which name is most consistence with the Wikipedia guideline here: WP:NATURAL. "Surface RT" may or may not be the most "correct" name, but it a natural disambiguation which is preferred over "Surface (first generation)" which is a parenthetical disambiguation. TheHoax (talk) 19:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
          • Parenthetical disambiguation is acceptable see Nexus_7_(2012_version), IPad_(3rd_generation) and the tables within Kindle Fire, Kindle Fire HD, and Kindle Fire HDX. TheHoax stop changing the article to "Surface RT". In the table and the Surface Family box, it was ORIGINALLY Surface (first generation). Until you changed it: [3] and [4] Ians18 (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
            • I have never said that parenthetical disambiguation is unacceptable, but rather than natural disambiguation is preferred to parenthetical disambiguation. TheHoax (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
              • The change that I made was done when the discussion was closed and prior to the discussion being reopened. TheHoax (talk) 19:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
                • (edit conflict) Parenthetical disambiguation is used in some cases for article titles but should be avoided in prose. Again "iPad (3rd generation)" is a bit of a special case as that is one of it's common names in addition to "the New iPad" and "iPad 3"; also note the 3rd generation is used there vs. third generation because it is part of the official name, unlike first generation / 1st generation for the Surface which is just a description. And it could be argued that it really should be "iPad (3rd Generation)" because of MOS:CAPS as it is a proper name. PaleAqua (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
          • @TheHoax: Well, it sure seemed like you were arguing for "Surface RT" being the most correct name, but fair enough.
The policy you linked to says that natural disambiguation requires, quote, "an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources" (emphasis mine). Can you demonstrate that this is the case for "Surface RT"?
And while we're on the subject of policies regarding article titles, we should also consider WP:NC, which lists the following five criteria:
  • Recognizability - given the confusion over the "Surface RT" moniker which prompted Microsoft to drop the "RT" part, I'd say "Surface (first generation)" better satisfies this criterion.
  • Naturalness - ditto. As "Surface RT" is not really used anymore, people are less likely to be searching for it, and editors in other articles are less likely to use it for linking.
  • Precision - "Surface (first generation)" is the more unambiguous of the two.
  • Conciseness - admittedly, "Surface RT" is shorter.
  • Consistency - per Ians18 above, parenthetical disambiguation using words like "version" or "generation" is not uncommon in similar articles.
So yes, while natural disambiguation might be preferable over parenthetical, were all other things equal, in this case it seems to me the policies favour the latter. Indrek (talk) 19:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Indrek (talk) First I will establish that "Surface RT" is "an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources" by providing links to review of the Surface RT from major sites: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] TheHoax (talk) 20:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Second, I shall now address each of the five naming policies

  • Recognizability – The Surface RT is immediately recognizable as it runs Windows RT as oppose to the Surface Pro that runs Windows 8.
  • Naturalness – The Surface RT has been discontinued for a while now. Most people looking for “Surface” are probably looking for either information on more current Surface products or the Surface family in general. The people looking for Surface RT probably remember that it runs Windows RT as oppose to Windows 8.
  • Precision – “Surface RT” is in certain context more precise than “Surface (first generation)”. The Surface Pro is also considered the first generation of the Surface devices.
  • Conciseness – nothing to add
  • Consistency – nothing to add

TheHoax (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Fair enough, you've shown that "Surface RT" is probably as common as the other forms. I respectfully disagree with your arguments regarding the five naming policies, however, and remain of the opinion that "Surface (first generation)" is more recognisable and less ambiguous. Combined with the fact that "Surface" is now the official name of the product, I think this makes a stronger argument than natural vs. parenthetical disambiguation.
It's been a few days since anyone has posted. Have we reached an impasse where neither side is able to convince the other? Indrek (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There is a request for close over at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. To me the more important question is how to refer to the tablet in this article. I don't think that we have a concensus yet on the title; however I do think that we shouldn't be using either form disambiguation within this article, just Surface with added prose as necessary. PaleAqua (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
@TranslucentCloud:, you're a regular contributor to Surface-related articles, do you have an opinion on this matter? Indrek (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
@Indrek: Actually I prefer not to deep dive into the "RT or not RT" discussion, because for me it is a really minor issue. Either name the original Surface will be called is appropriate. However, if one will ask me about my personal feelings, I would say that I don't like Surface RT because most people wouldn't recognize the tablet in question by this name and Surface (first generation) is too damn long. Maybe I'll bet on Original Surface, but this name have its own issues, too. TranslucentCloud (talk) 08:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Indrek, I also want to note that "Surface RT" has more Naturalness than "Surface (first generation)" as evident from Google Trends. [12] TheHoax (talk) 22:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course it does, because "(first generation)" is a Wikipedia-specific construct, so that's not really a valid comparison. Then again, "Surface RT" vs. just "Surface" isn't any more valid, because the latter is also the name of the product family and therefore much more popular. Conclusion? Google Trends cannot help us in this case. Indrek (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Since "Surface" is out of the running, we are left with "Surface RT" and "Surface (first generation)" and in terms of Naturalness, the former wins hands down. TheHoax (talk) 22:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Think about it this way: which name has more Naturalness? A former name that is widely use or a name that is a Wikipedia-specific construct? The former. TheHoax (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
"(first generation)" is the common, accepted way disambiguate an ambiguous title here on Wikipedia, as seen with my examples above I have posted many, many times. Ians18 (talk) 01:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I've never said that it wasn't. TheHoax (talk) 05:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
@TheHoax: I see where you're coming from, but I remain unconvinced by your arguments. "Surface RT" might "win hands down" if it were still the actual name of the product, but the simple truth is that it's not. It's just "Surface", now, so that would be the most natural name. Since that name is unavailable, however, "Surface (first generation)" (following the precedent set by multiple similar articles) is the next best choice.
All: how do we proceed from here? Indrek (talk) 04:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
The whole thing with RT or not RT went too far. Let's stick to the first generation Surface will be Surface (first generation) or just original Surface. Regarding the timeline, plain and simple Surface looks cleaner and simpler. TranslucentCloud (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
That's pretty much my opinion as well. ( I don't think we have anything close to a consensus on the article title which is where I see Surface RT vs Surface (paren something) come into play ), but for linking to the page the plain and simple "Surface" works fine and matches Wikipedia's style guidelines. Extra words like "original" or the "first version of" can be used in prose where it is necessary. PaleAqua (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with TranslucentCloud and PaleAqua that "Surface" is sufficient where disambiguation is not needed (e.g. the timeline, specs tables and so on), and combinations like "original Surface" can be used in prose where disambiguation is needed. Does anyone disagree, or can we assume the dispute to now only concern the title of the article about the original Surface tablet? Indrek (talk) 20:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Any why would doing so be any better than using "Surface RT" consistently everywhere? One name, unambiguous. TheHoax (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Because Surface RT is not really recognizable and it is, well, weird. TranslucentCloud (talk) 20:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Google Trends disagree with "Surface RT" being unrecognizable. [13] Also being "weird" is subjective. ie. For non-native speakers, English is a "weird" languages with many exceptions yet many native English speaker would probably disagree with that. I would say "Surface {open parenthesis} first generation {close parenthesis}" is weird. TheHoax (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
(moved after discussion was reorganized while I replied) One in the context Surface by it self works in most places. Two there is enough disagreement about using Surface RT as the name ( per the title move discussions ) that probably is not the right disambiguation to use. ( Note again I actually do prefer using Surface RT for the article title but understand we don't have concensus there. ) Three even if the article was called Surface RT, it would mostly be because it was a natural disambiguation and only a second choice to calling the tablet Surface ( if the product family, the topological term, etc. didn't exists. ) So even in that case the RT is unnecessary unless disambiguation in prose in needed, and in that case there are also other ways to right the sentence resolves any ambiguaty. Not also that not everyone agrees that Surface RT is unambigous, though I have rarely if at all heard of the Surface 2 being considered a Surface RT instead of a device that runs Windows RT. PaleAqua (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Does it matter what the current name is? Wikipedia has a topic on Taiwan even though the current name is "Republic of China". TheHoax (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
The argument against "Surface RT" is that it is not a good name because it's not the current name, yet this is irrelevant. There are plenty of articles in Wikipedia that use names that are not the current names. See Taiwan, for example. TheHoax (talk) 17:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Let's say that someone uninvolved goes to Wikipedia's homepage and wants to look at the information about the Surface RT. What do think he will be most likely searches for? "Surface RT", "Surface (first generation), or "first generation Surface"? The first wins hands down. TheHoax (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
So far, I have provided a number of reasons why "Surface RT" is the most appropriate name. "I don't like it (the name)" or "I remain unconvinced" is not a valid argument. The question is not whether "Surface RT" is a good name or not. The question is: what is the most appropriate name? TheHoax (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I think they're going to search for just "surface", reach this article, then use the hatnote to get to the article they wanted. Or they might search for "Microsoft Surface". And even if someone does happen to search for "Surface RT" (which I find very unlikely), then they'll just be redirected to Surface (first generation).
And yes, it does matter what the current name is. Taiwan is a bad example because statehood can be a complex and subjective issue (case in point, there's a whole article dedicated to the political status of Taiwan). There is no universally accepted authority for determining the "current" name of a country or territory. Not so with technology products where the manufacturer is just such an authority. According to Microsoft, the product you keep calling "Surface RT" is now called simply "Surface". Just like the product originally called "Surface" is now called "PixelSense". Or, if we look at software products and services: Hotmail, SkyDrive, iPhone OS and numerous other similar articles have been renamed to whatever the subject is currently called, with the original name(s) remaining as redirects.
So allow me to make something clear - there is no good reason not to use the current name of the product. "Surface RT" deserves some mention in the article, yes, as the original name of the product, but that's it. Indrek (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
There are good reasons not to use "Surface (first generation)" and one of them is that this is not something some one would naturally look for.
Here's the order of the name by priority:
1.) Surface → Too generic
2.) Microsoft Surface → already exist, refer to the entire line
3.) Surface RT → specific and unambiguous, natural disambiguity
4.) Surface (first generation) → parenthetical disambiguity, not something someone would look for
5.) first generation Surface → again, not something someone would be as likely look for
TheHoax (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
As I have previously said many many many times, it is irrelevant if the people looking for the Surface RT just search for "Microsoft Surface": that is taken care of by the hatnote at the top of the Microsoft Surface article.
The next and most relevance question is what is the second most likely name that someone is most likely to search for and that is "Surface RT" not "Surface (first generation)" nor "first generation Surface". TheHoax (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's consider this: suppose someone is on Wikipedia's homepage and is looking for the Surface RT. The thing that he'll most likely search for is either "Surface" or "Microsoft Surface", but those are not being considered because they are already taken. What is the next most likely thing for him to search for? "Surface RT", "Surface (first generation)" or "first generation Surface"? TheHoax (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The most common name that would be search for is "Surface" hands down. Surface RT? No. Surface is a much more common name and (first generation) completely disambiguates it.As for iPad per comments above, why are the articles not iPad 3 or iPad 4? Because obviously parenthetical disambiguation is more preferable in some cases even to WP:CommonName, making the argument for Surface RT being more common and the most preferable name because of its "commonality". Clearly "Surface (first generation)" or "Surface (1st generation)" is better. Ians18 (talk) 06:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
As I have said again and again and again and again and again, "Surface" and "Microsoft Surface" cannot be used so those are NOT being considered. That leaves the three main candidates: "Surface RT", "Surface (first generation)" and "first generation Surface". "Surface RT" is the most appropriate name not only because it's a natural disambiguation, but also because out of the three, it's the most common name according to Google Trends [14] . TheHoax (talk) 07:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
If we are talking about within this article, those names can be used. It is only the article titles that we have to have unique names and deal with deciding with term has which primary topic. PaleAqua (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC) (edit conflict)
Agreed. Within article text both "Surface" and "Microsoft Surface" (with phrases like "original Surface" used for disambiguation where necessary) are better choices than the deprecated "Surface RT" moniker. As far as article titles are concerned, "Surface RT" can be (and in fact already is, following the example of numerous other articles) set up as a redirect to Surface (first generation), so that should take care of the people searching for the original name for some reason, making that argument pretty much moot. So what other objections are there to "Surface (first generation)" as article title? Indrek (talk) 08:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure why you want to use multiple names for the same name for multiple things. To do that you must 1.) Add information that said that the Surface RT and Surface is the same thing. and 2.) clarify whether you are talking about the Surface line and the Surface Pro line or the Surface RT. This just adds too much complication and put the burden on the reader to interpret what things means. One thing = one name, it's easier.
Imagine a person name James Anderson. We talk about Anderson for a while then we decided to introduce his middle name, Hunter. And we also use that for a while, when we decided to mention that he sometimes also uses his mother's maiden last name, Reynolds. Why did we just put in all that effort calling him different names? Why didn't we just call him "Anderson" everywhere? TheHoax (talk) 08:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, as mention by Indrek, "Surface RT" redirects to "Surface (first generation)". The opposite should be true. "Surface (first generation)" should be redirected to "Surface RT". TheHoax (talk) 08:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
No one wants to use multiple names. Only one name is necessary - Surface. Adding disambiguation like "original" or "(first generation)" where necessary does not constitute a different name. As for your analogy, it seems to me that "Surface RT" is just like Anderson's mother's maiden name - deserves mention for historical purposes, but not to be used as the primary moniker.
And no, "Surface RT" should remain as the redirect, following the precedent set by numerous tech-related articles where the article title is based on the current name while old, deprecated names are kept as redirects. Can you give even one example where the opposite is true? Indrek (talk) 07:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Your argument is invalid. Sure, "iPhone OS" has been renamed to "iOS" and "SkyDrive" has been renamed to "OneDrive", but those new names DO NOT contains parenthetical disambiguation. And like I have said previously, "Surface" is already taken and not being considered therefore the choice is between "Surface RT", "Surface (first generation)" and "first generation Surface". TheHoax (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, I see that what Indrek has done is to shift the burden of proof on to me to prove that "Surface RT" is a better name: something he thinks is a losing argument, yet he has failed to adequately address why "Surface (first generation)" or "first generation Surface" would be a better name. It doesn't matter if you like the name "Surface RT" or not. "Surface RT" may or may not be a good name, but it is a better name than "Surface (first generation)" and "first generation Surface". TheHoax (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Your argument is invalid /---/ those new names DO NOT contains parenthetical disambiguation You must have misunderstood my argument, then. The point was that it is standard practice to use the current name of the subject for the article title. If the current name is ambiguous, then we simply disambiguate it (yes, using parenthetical disambiguation, if necessary), rather than falling back to an old, deprecated moniker.
the choice is between "Surface RT", "Surface (first generation)" and "first generation Surface" For the article title, the choice is between "Surface RT" and "Surface (first generation)". For article content (including external templates like the timeline) the choice is between "Surface RT" and "Surface" (possibly disambiguated as e.g. "original Surface" or "first-generation Surface" where necessary). I don't believe "Surface RT" to be the superior choice in either case.
Also, I see that what Indrek has done is to shift the burden of proof on to me Your accusation is as baseless as it is unconstructive. Firstly, I have given several reasons why both "Surface (first generation)" and "Surface" (again, disambiguated where necessary) are better choices for the article title and content, respectively. If you've forgotten, feel free to re-read the discussion to refresh your memory. And for the record, "I don't like 'Surface RT'" is not one of those reasons, so you can drop that particular strawman. Secondly, every editor is expected to provide rational, policy-based arguments to back up their viewpoint in a discussion. That's a burden that has been on you (as well as everyone else) since the beginning of the dispute, and asking you a simple question does not constitute any sort of shift in that situation. I'll thank you to maintain a more constructive tone in the future. Indrek (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I am going to reproduce what you said above:
The policy you linked to says that natural disambiguation requires, quote, "an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources" (emphasis mine). Can you demonstrate that this is the case for "Surface RT"?And while we're on the subject of policies regarding article titles, we should also consider WP:NC.
I have already responded. You said that you are unconvinced. That is not a valid response. TheHoax (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
As I have said again and again and again and again, Google Trends is not a valid way of measuring "naturalness" if you consider people will be searching more for Surface rather than Surface RT. @PaleAqua I have heard the Surface 2 be called the Surface RT 2, making Surface RT even MORE ambiguous. Ians18 (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
FWIW Not interested in pushing a move for the Surface (first generation)/Surface RT article at this point. I might still disagree but the current title works well enough. I've heard Surface 2 RT occassionally myself. My biggest concern is that we shouldn't be using needless parenthenical disambigution within the articles, navigation templates etc, especially when context helps. As far as I can tell, most but not all of us are aligned that just "Surface", with extra verbiage as necessary works. PaleAqua (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Ians18, as I have said again and again, it doesn't matter that "Surface" is more natural than "Surface RT" since "Surface" is too ambiguous. The question is: which one of the three ["Surface RT", "Surface (first generation)", or "first generation Surface"] is the most natural. Also, if you don't think Google Trends is a valid way to measure naturalness, I want to see what see how you are able to quantitatively measure which one of the three is the most natural. TheHoax (talk) 05:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
"I have heard the Surface 2 be called the Surface RT 2, making Surface RT even MORE ambiguous." And I know an international student that thought that seahorse is a breed of horse. What's your point? TheHoax (talk) 05:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I have clearly made my point Surface RT is ambiguous. There you go again with those useless comparisons, at least I compare with the [iPad] articles, which are relevant examples in this caseIans18 (talk) 05:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Ians, your argument is ridiculous. There is no other tablet name "Surface RT". Going by your logic, "Surface (first generation)" would be ambiguous because its name is similar to "Surface Pro (first generation)". By your logic, the name of the Surface RT needs to be "Surface (first generation, not Surface Pro) to be unambiguous. TheHoax (talk) 06:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Accordingly, "Surface RT" would be less ambiguous than "Surface (first generation)" since "Surface RT" is less similar to "Surface Pro (first generation)" than "Surface (first generation)".
Again by your logic, which one is less ambiguous? "Surface (first generation)" and "Surface Pro (first generation)" or "Surface RT" and "Surface Pro (first generation)"? The latter is less ambiguous. TheHoax (talk) 06:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
That "Surface (first generation)" could be confused with "Surface Pro (first generation)" is a much bigger concern than "Surface RT" could be confused with some imaginary, non-existing product. TheHoax (talk) 06:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

As I have already stated, Surface RT is old and is ambiguous with Surface RT 2, which has been stated for being used. Your argument is useless and invalid. Honestly, I have all the time in the world to argue this out, I'm not going anywhere Ians18 (talk) 07:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Something to consider: Category:Redirects from former names has ~3400 entries, while Category:Redirects to former names has 33. This represents a Wikipedia-wide preference (with a ~100:1 ratio) for using the current name as the title and leaving any older names as redirects.
Further, a few examples of articles from the relevant fields of technology and consumer electronics that use parenthetical disambiguation in the title:
I could probably dig up more examples, but I think the conclusion is obvious - using an old, deprecated moniker (such as "Surface RT") for the article title is very uncommon and a very good reason is needed to prefer it over the current name. Natural vs. parenthetical disambiguation clearly is not a good enough reason. Indrek (talk) 10:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Ians18, the "Surface RT 2" does not exist and never has. You can go on and talk about all the imaginary products you like. You argument holds no water.
On the other hand, it is possible for someone to confuse Surface (first generation) with Surface Pro (first generation).
Indrek, you can cherry-pick the examples, but let's look at some other.
TheHoax (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Surface, and Microsoft Lumia are all family names. e.g. Windows covers Windows, Windows Server, Windows Live, Windows CE and many other products. Microsoft Surface, well there is more than one tablet in that family, same with Lumia having more than one smartphone family. Notice how they all have Microsoft in front. As for Android, Google was not the original creator (they bought Android) and Android as I recall hasn't been referred to Google Android ever. I have heard Google's Android OS or Android OS, but they are not official names. The official name for that is Android (which like Surface is too ambiguous), but a parenthetical disambiguation is needed in this case "first generation" and in Android's case "operating system" Ians18 (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Android (operating system) is a little bit different. Google is the main developer, but it doesn't own Android (operating system) or at least not the part of Android (operating system) that's open source. TheHoax (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Guys, let's not fixate on Android. It was just an example, and my argument (to wit, that natural vs. parenthetical disambiguation is of secondary importance here) stands even without it. Indrek (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
What was you argument again? TheHoax (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
No, what's your argument? We have all provided evidence to disprove your "evidence". Ians18 (talk) 04:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Ians18, you still haven't provided a way to quantitatively measure how popular something is. I like to use Google Trends, but I assume that you have something better up your sleeves. TheHoax (talk) 05:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and when you "disproved" something, you better have some solid evidence to back it up. For example, "this paternity test disproved that this man is the biological father of this child." TheHoax (talk) 05:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) For comparison see [15]. I probably could fine tune a bit and there are also the caveats about the relative value of searchs compared to ngrams ( which unfortunately only go up to 2009 ). PaleAqua (talk) 05:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
PaleAqua, thanks for posting that data. TheHoax (talk) 05:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Take a look at the Google Trend for Surface 1 and Surface RT, Surface 1 is more popular now. However, just like the iPad articles not being named iPad 3 or iPad 4, we will not name it Surface 1 and will follow what they do in naming the article Surface (first generation) and when there is enough differentiation e.g. in the article with the context of the other devices we will simply refer to it as Surface. For the family, we will refer to it as Microsoft Surface. Ians18 (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
As PaleAqua has stated, the article Microsoft Surface itself should have enough context to disambiguate just "Surface". For example, referring the the Surface, Surface 2, and Surface 3 together should be enough to not confuse people as to lead them to believe Surface is referring to the Surface Pro or the family itself Ians18 (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Ians18, I don't know what voodoo you are doing, but the data doesn't support your argument. [16] TheHoax (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh, how convenient: [17]. Now you've switched to personal attacks, nice... Ians18 (talk) 23:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Ians18, even if you dropped the word "Microsoft", the data still doesn't support your argument. [18] TheHoax (talk) 01:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The argument against the name "Surface RT" is that it's an old name. Are there some Wikipedia's rules that said that old names shouldn't be use? If not, then "it's an old name" is not a valid argument. TheHoax (talk) 06:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

That's not the only argument against "Surface RT", and you know it.
Also, I've demonstrated above that Wikipedia articles overwhelmingly prefer to use the current name and leave old names as redirects. Yes, it's not a written rule, but since WP:NC calls for, among other things, consistency with other articles' titles, a very good reason is needed for us to make an exception in this case, and no such reason has been provided. Indrek (talk) 06:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
You keep pointing to the part about "Consistency". There are five parts are you have yet to convincingly make the case for the other four parts. I would call this a type of cherry picking. In addition, you also need to address the part about disambiguation. TheHoax (talk) 06:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I would call this a type of cherry picking. And I would encourage you to stop with the baseless accusations and actually re-read the discussion above, where you'll find I've already made my case for the five criteria of WP:NC. I only mentioned consistency here because it's directly applicable to your question about using old names.
In addition, you also need to address the part about disambiguation. Which part exactly? You mean the natural vs. parenthetical thing? I've already explained repeatedly why I think that doesn't trump the other arguments. Indrek (talk) 06:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Indrek, I said to make the cases convincingly. TheHoax (talk) 07:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
If you can't be convinced by rational arguments, then there's nothing more for me to say. Indrek (talk) 07:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
You want to know what I am convenced by? Numbers, data. For example, if you are to use some data (ie. Google Trends) to show that "Surface (first generation)" or "first generation Surface" has more naturalness than "Surface RT", you can convinced me. TheHoax (talk) 07:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
In other words, "Show me the numbers!" TheHoax (talk) 07:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Let's look at "Naturalness". According to Google Trends, Surface RT easily wins this category. [19]
To see which one has the most "Precision", I shall put each of the three terms into the Google search engine and looking the the first ten results, see how many results refer correctly to the device.
Search term "first generation Surface": ✔ [20], ✘[21], ✔ [22], ✘ [23], ✘ [24], ✔ [25], ✘ [26], ✘ [27], ✘ [28], ✘ [29]
Search term "Surface (first generation): ✔ [30], ✔ [31], ✔ [32], ✘ [33], ✔ [34], ✘[35], ✘ [36], ✘ [37], ✘ [38], ✘ [39]
Search term "Surface RT": ✔ [40], ✔ [41], ✔ [42], ✔ [43], ✔ [44], ✘ [45], ✔ [46], ✔ [47], ✘ [48], ✘ [49] TheHoax (talk) 12:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
What about "Conciseness"? "Surface RT": 9 characters long. "first generation Surface": 22 characters long. "Surface (first generation)": 24 characters long. TheHoax (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Update the "reception" section

Would somebody please update the reception section? It looks like it hasn't been updated since Surface Pro came out. TheHoax (talk) 03:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Any takers? Ians18? TranslucentCloud? TheHoax (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not really a fan of editing of Reception sections. Especially the huge sections of such vast articles like this. TranslucentCloud (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I have previously edited the reception section, and right now I just don't have the time to go through the entire section. I have to do the software section for the Surface Pro, Surface Pro 2, and this article. I will certainly provide links for research if you need it. Ians18 (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Why does each individual Surface model needs its own software section? Is Windows 10 on Surface Po 3 all that different from Windows 10 on Surface Pro 2? TheHoax (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Images

TheHoax, I see you uploaded images from Flickr, but one contains Chinese characters in it. I have a Pro 3 and first-gen, so if you'd like I can go take some shots of the Pro 3. Ians18 (talk) 06:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I do want images showing the Pen being used. (for example, annnotating a file in Drawboard PDF.) TheHoax (talk) 16:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
You consider Chinese as something bad? TranslucentCloud (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
This is the English wikipedia, not bad, just out of place. Ians18 (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

To-do list of this article

Because there are few editors and lot of work still need to be done, we need to coordinate our effort. As a result, I've added a to-do list for this article at the top of the page. Ians18 TranslucentCloud TheHoax (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Why was this reverted?

I don't see why this was reverted except for Ians18 to annoy me: [50] Either than or Ians18 is trigger-happy. TheHoax (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Ians18 Please fix all the redirect that you have just undone. TheHoax (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Without pointing any fingers or passing judgment on anyone's motives, I recommend all involved editors stop editing the article. Like, now. Doesn't matter if you're unhappy with its current state for whatever reason, because it's not like the article is completely broken or illegible. So please, let's leave it alone for now and focus on the discussion. Indrek (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree, until the discussion has ended and a consensus is reached, I will not edit the article. Ians18 (talk) 04:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Windows 10?

Note that this is nothing against the sudden addition of Windows 10 to supersede Windows 8 and Windows 8.1 in this article, but still that were the operating systems included with the Microsoft Surface at launch (I know, I know, some editor will be prone to point out WP:ASTONISH and that if Microsoft will rename the Surface line to "Microsoft Slate" today that we should retroactively change the Surface Pro 1 to Slate Pro 1, Etc. while that same editor won't recognize any other retroactive renaming done by Microsoft like renaming Windows Mobile 6.5 and Windows Mobile 5 to Windows Phone 6.5 and Windows Phone 5, excuse me for this part I'm a bit bitter over the double standards of some "veteran editors" in other articles), my argument mostly consists over these two things, either be consistent because Windows RT has officially been replaced with Windows RT 8.1 with the launch of Windows 8.1 or be contemporary where it mentions the operating systems at launch but mentions their upgradability to Windows 10 think of List of Windows Phone devices or Microsoft Lumia which mention the operating system of the device at launch and then to which version or next operating system they're supported. Honestly I have nothing against the present layout that places them under Windows 10, I'm just proposing a discussion around what could be changed to make it more consistent. Should I add "8.1" to the references to Windows RT 8.1? --Hoang the Hoangest (talk) 01:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia article for "Windows RT 8.1" hence why the article is as it is now. TheHoax (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Reaching Consensus

I'd like to reach some sort of consensus here, if possible. Here is what I propose:

  • When possible, use Surface instead of Surface (first generation) throughout the main article when there is enough context e.g with other device as in the timeline or sidebox
  • Keep the use of Surface (first generation) as the article title and, if necessary, a way to disambiguate when it stands alone in other articles as per concise

*Optional: Move Surface (first generation) to Surface (1st generation) to keep it similar to the iPad (1st generation) article

  • EDIT: Use first generation Surface rather than parenthetical disambiguation in the main article

Ians18 (talk) 01:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Support

  • Partial Support ( all but rename of first to 1st, and prefer prose to parenthenicals when necessary in article templates ). "(1st generation)" is a special case for Apple devices as "1st" is actually part of a common name for those devices[51]; while for the tablet it is just a parenthetical disambiguation and should follow the style guidelines of WP:MOSNUM. To be honest I'm still not 100% convinced on Surface RT vs Surface (first generation) as article tile even though the search results I linked above have me reconsidering; but in the interest of consensus and relative importance you can treat this as a support of keeping the article at Surface (first generation) at least for now. PaleAqua (talk) 02:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC) Edit: tweaked slightly; also wanted to be clear I strongly prefer using prose such as the "original ARM based Surface" over "Surface (first generation)" in places where context is not enough. PaleAqua (talk) 13:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. "Surface" is the current name, and is also commonly used in secondary sources. Therefore, it's the best choice for use in article content. Natural disambiguation (e.g. "original Surface") can also be used where necessary. For the article title, "Surface (first generation)" is the best choice as it satisfies the criteria at WP:NC and follows existing custom which overwhelmingly favours using the current name of the subject.
I do not feel using "Surface (1st generation)" for the title is necessary - as PaleAqua says, that seems to be more of an Apple thing. Indrek (talk) 05:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Indrek, can you show quantitatively that the people looking for Surface RT is searching for "first generation Surface" or "Surface (first generation)" more so than "Surface RT"? I have found no evidence that suggests that this is the case. TheHoax (talk) 05:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Partial support. The words should appear as "the first-generation Surface" (or similar) within article prose, rather than "Surface (first generation)". Also, in some sentences, when we're contrasting the original two devices, "the ARM-based Surface" would work better. (It's doesn't make any sense to tack on the words "(first generation)" to contrast from the first-generation Surface Pro.) - Josh (talk | contribs) 06:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Partial Support support all of the proposals, except of the first > 1st. We already had Surface (1st generation) as the article's title and it was not good. iPad article should be also renamed this way, instead of taking as a standard. TranslucentCloud (talk) 09:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

  • Oppose You have not sufficiently demonstrated why there should be there should be different names referring to the name product. Aside from being the current name, you have failed to demonstrate that it is a popular name. Just use the name "Suface RT" throughout the article. It short, it's easy, and it's unambiguous. It follow guidelines: WP:NATURAL and WP:NATURAL.TheHoax (talk) 04:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Reaching Consensus (Surface RT naming)

I'd like to reach some sort of consensus here, if possible. Here is what I propose:

  • Use name "Surface RT" consistently throughout the article. It short, it's easy, and it's unambiguous. It follow guidelines: WP:NATURAL and WP:NC.
  • The name "Surface RT" is a popular using the same name consistently throughout the article prevents any confusion.

TheHoax (talk) 04:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Support

  • Microsoft specifically renamed the device to Surface RT just to alleviate this confusion. Now you're going to a disambiguated name when a natural name exists. And I don't understand why you say it's a "deprecated moniker"; yes, they "deprecated" it by not using RT to refer to ARM-based Surface 2. Most of the other oppose comments wreak of IDONTLIKEIT ViperSnake151  Talk  16:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Look at the Surface page for the Surface tablet notice how it is careful not to say Surface RT anymore.If you also look at the extremely lengthy discussion in the above section and the section on the archived page, you will absolutely see why Surface RT is no longer justified. Essentially, ViperSnake151, you are late to the party. WikIan (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Microsoft specifically renamed the device to Surface RT just to alleviate this confusion. No, they specifically renamed the device from Surface RT to alleviate the confusion. [52]
they "deprecated" it by not using RT to refer to ARM-based Surface 2 They also deprecated it by not using RT to refer to the original ARM-based Surface. [53]
As WikIan observed, a lot of arguments have been made against the use of the outdated "Surface RT" moniker on this talk page already, and you may wish to acquaint yourself with them first. The oppose comments here, which you summarily dismissed as subjective, are mere summaries. Indrek (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
You still assert that we cannot use "Surface RT" because it is "outdated" and not "up to date", but the article titles policy reads that article titles have to be concise, recognizable, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources, and that the "official" name does not always meet this criteria. "Surface RT" is the most commonly used name in English-language sources, and we should not be attempting to enforce Microsoft's attempt to retroactively re-name this device under a more ambiguous name, which then prompts us to change to a name that does not use natural disambiguation. "Surface (first generation)" is an invented title that contradicts use by reliable sources, which have favored the use of "Surface RT" as the name of the device. In fact, despite the apparent removal of this name, the title tag on that page for the device you linked still refers to it as "Surface RT - The Original Microsoft Tablet".
And the "Microsoft specifically renamed the device to Surface RT just to alleviate this confusion" was actually about when it was called "Surface with Windows RT"/"Surface with Windows 8" pre-launch naming. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
We have already discussed this, please look back at the archive and the many uses of Google Trends that we used. Surface RT is not proven to be the more common name. In addition, Surface (first generation) is unambiguous enough and the iPad articles use this naming method. Also, Surface with Windows RT was an old name and Surface RT was the new name. However, Surface became the new name for Surface RT. We have essentially reached consensus here, even with your input. You are coming in when the discussion has ended and we are all ready to close this discussion. WikIan (talk) 22:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
WikIan, ViperSnake151, "Surface RT" is the common name according to Google Trends. [54] TheHoax (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
You still assert that we cannot use "Surface RT" because it is "outdated" and not "up to date" I assert much more than that. Once again, kindly read through the existing discussion where, among other things, I've demonstrated how "Surface (first generation)" better satisfies all but one of the criteria at WP:NC. Right now you're simply repeating arguments that have already been refuted, which is counterproductive.
"Surface RT" is the most commonly used name in English-language sources Proof, please. Because Google Trends shows "Surface" to be far more popular than "Surface RT". [55] Of course, it will also count uses of "Surface" for other models of the family, the family itself and even the devices now known as PixelSense, which is why (as I've already said) Google Trends is not helpful for evaluating possible article titles in this particular case (regardless of TheHoax's desire to quantify everything). Indrek (talk) 07:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

PaleAqua, why do you want to use two different names for the article and pose? "Surface RT" is more concise than "first generation Surface" or "Surface (first generation). "Surface RT" even shorter than "Surface Pro 2", yet we never questioned that that name "Surface Pro 2" is too long. TheHoax (talk) 04:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Please do not turn this into a discussion (that is for the above section) this is for reaching consensus. Ians18 (talk) 05:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Surface (first generation) as a more precise, accurate, and up-to-date name. There is absolutely no room for ambiguity, whereas Surface RT can be confused with Surface 2 as a Surface RT 2.Ians18 (talk) 05:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Ians18, so you think the people are going to confuse the "Surface RT" with the "Surface RT 2" which only exist in the land of fairies, yet somehow people won't confuse "Surface (first generation)" with "Surface Pro (first generation)"? It's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? TheHoax (talk) 05:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
exist in the land of fairies... shows your amateur inability to discuss. Surface Pro is extremely clear on its own, I don't see how anyone can confuse that. As for Surface RT 2, I've heard it and seen it posted, don't tell me what I have and haven't seen or hear. I will no longer reply back to this thread. Please discuss in the appropriate section. Ians18 (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
FYI, showing maturity in discussion involves demonstrating quantitative data. I heard X doesn't count. TheHoax (talk) 05:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Surface RT" is an old, deprecated moniker and no convincing reasons have been provided that would make it preferable over the current name ("Surface"). Keeping it as a redirect to the actual article completely solves the only real issue that has been demonstrated - that of people possibly searching Wikipedia for the old name. Indrek (talk) 05:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Indrek, "Surface RT" may be an old name, but I don't believe that there's any rule that said that old names should not be used. TheHoax (talk) 06:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

TheHoax

@TheHoax please stop vandalizing the page. Ians18 (talk) 06:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ians18 please buy a dictionary. TheHoax (talk) 06:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
@Ians18 Oh, and also please learn correct grammar: it's essential these days. It's the English Wikipedia not the ghettopedia.
(ie. A company is singular. Microsoft = it) TheHoax (talk)
@Ians18 I am so glad that you are violating your own promise not to edit the article until the discussion is closed. You want me to read what you said? Here it is: "I agree, until the discussion has ended and a consensus is reached, I will not edit the article."
Oh, and if you haven't notice, there aren't many other editors on the Surface articles that are willing to major rewrites. TheHoax (talk) 06:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
TheHoax Please desist with the personal attacks. As far as "Microsoft = it" is concerned, please look up the concept of collective nouns. Indrek (talk) 09:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Indrek, you think I am doing the person attack? I am the one "vandalizing" the page the page? Maybe you need to go look at the "history" of the article. I am one of the few willing to do the major rewrites. TheHoax (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, when you say, "Surface" is enough given the context, what you that means is '"Surface" is enough for you given the context.
To think that it's enough for everyone else is a false assumption. Having worked in the laboratory and written many reports along with many charts and tables, I can tell you that this is not as you think. You must be mindful that the reader is NOT you and does NOT read or think the same way you do. TheHoax (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
After all, the iPad article uses first generation in the tables. And wasn't a big part of WikIan's argument what the iPad article does? TheHoax (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I am one of the few willing to do the major rewrites. I don't see how that's relevant. Your contributions, when constructive, are appreciated, but that does not give you the right to antagonise other editors and ignore dispute resolution processes.
Also, when you say, "Surface" is enough given the context, what you that means is '"Surface" is enough for you given the context. No, what I mean is that, given the context, "Surface" is enough for a reasonably knowledgeable reader. Are you seriously suggesting there are a significant number of people who, upon seeing "Surface" in a list of Surface devices, would not immediately understand that it refers to the first-generation tablet and not the entire family?
After all, the iPad article uses first generation in the tables. While the iPad article has been mentioned as an example to follow (and rightly so), it doesn't mean we have to copy it in every little detail. Perhaps the intricacies of Apple's product naming system demand explicit disambiguation everywhere, but in the case of the Surface family, it's not necessary. In a list of Surface devices, "Surface" is unambiguous. Indrek (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't see how that's relevant. Your contributions, when constructive, are appreciated, but that does not give you the right to antagonise other editors and ignore dispute resolution processes. Doesn't the resolution process involving addressing all the issues? I don't ever see in a courtroom, "This is taking too long. Lets just skip the rest and go right over to decide the verdict."
No, what I mean is that, given the context, "Surface" is enough for a reasonably knowledgeable reader. You assumption is that everyone reads linearly. I highly doubt that most people read from beginning to end. TheHoax (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps the intricacies of Apple's product naming system demand explicit disambiguation everywhere, but in the case of the Surface family, it's not necessary. Perhaps, the iPad is sufficiently different the Surface that the comparison that the comparison is fallacious in the first place. TheHoax (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
TheHoax, your comments about "willing to major rewrites" of the articles is ownish, remember you do not own this article and your edits are to improve the page, so this argument is invalid. Also, Indrek, PaleAqua, TransclucentCloud, IllegalOperation, and I have all contributed a huge amount to this article as well, using that as an argument, however, is invalid. WikIan (talk) 01:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Ians18, you should look again at the history. [56] There aren't that many major contributors. Indrek is here because you asked him to be. TranslucentCloud did do quite a bit of work and I have to give him credit. TheHoax (talk) 01:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
The fact that you have to hit the save button that many times just to get a single edit right, does not mean you have contributed more than others. In any case "contributing more" does not matter in any argumentative way. WikIan (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Indrek is here because you asked him to be. If you're going to accuse someone of canvassing, you'd better make sure you have evidence to support this. I'm here because I have the Surface-related articles in my watchlist. I've observed the dispute from the beginning, and joined it completely on my own initiative. The message WikIan left on my talk page was merely to let me know of a new development in the dispute, which I would have noticed myself anyway.
Such baseless accusations make it very hard to assume good faith on your part. Indrek (talk) 07:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Surface RT naming: follow Wikipedia's policies, not "I just don't like it"

This is the discussion about the naming of "Surface RT"

The previous discussion is invalid because it does not show how the name is in accordance with Wikipedia's guideline.

The discussion should not be "I believe the name be X because...", but rather "The name should be X because it follows the Wikipedia guidelines WP:NC and WP:NATURALDIS.

It does not matter what in your heart you believe, but rather, which conforms to the two guidelines WP:NC and WP:NATURALDIS. TheHoax (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's look at "Naturalness". According to Google Trends, Surface RT easily wins this category. [57]
To see which one has the most "Precision", I shall put each of the three terms into the Google search engine and looking the the first ten results, see how many results refer correctly to the device.
Search term "first generation Surface": ✔ [58], ✘[59], ✔ [60], ✘ [61], ✘ [62], ✔ [63], ✘ [64], ✘ [65], ✘ [66], ✘ [67]
Search term "Surface (first generation): ✔ [68], ✔ [69], ✔ [70], ✘ [71], ✔ [72], ✘[73], ✘ [74], ✘ [75], ✘ [76], ✘ [77]
Search term "Surface RT": ✔ [78], ✔ [79], ✔ [80], ✔ [81], ✔ [82], ✘ [83], ✔ [84], ✔ [85], ✘ [86], ✘ [87] TheHoax (talk) 12:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
What about "Conciseness"? "Surface RT": 9 characters long. "first generation Surface": 22 characters long. "Surface (first generation)": 24 characters long. TheHoax (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
How about disambiguation? Natural disambiguation "Surface RT" is preferred over Parenthetical disambiguation "Surface (first generation)".
ViperSnake151 Ians18 Indrek, what have you to say? TheHoax (talk) 22:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Like ViperShank151 said, all I hear is "I don't like it". I have provided numerous verifiable sources that support my positions. TheHoax (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
You still assert that we cannot use "Surface RT" because it is "outdated" and not "up to date", but the article titles policy reads that article titles have to be concise, recognizable, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources, and that the "official" name does not always meet this criteria. "Surface RT" is the most commonly used name in English-language sources, and we should not be attempting to enforce Microsoft's attempt to retroactively re-name this device under a more ambiguous name, which then prompts us to change to a name that does not use natural disambiguation. "Surface (first generation)" is an invented title that contradicts use by reliable sources, which have favored the use of "Surface RT" as the name of the device. In fact, despite the apparent removal of this name, the title tag on that page for the device you linked still refers to it as "Surface RT - The Original Microsoft Tablet".
And the "Microsoft specifically renamed the device to Surface RT just to alleviate this confusion" was actually about when it was called "Surface with Windows RT"/"Surface with Windows 8" pre-launch naming. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
We have already discussed this, please look back at the archive and the many uses of Google Trends that we used. Surface RT is not proven to be the more common name. In addition, Surface (first generation) is unambiguous enough and the iPad articles use this naming method. Also, Surface with Windows RT was an old name and Surface RT was the new name. However, Surface became the new name for Surface RT. We have essentially reached consensus here, even with your input. You are coming in when the discussion has ended and we are all ready to close this discussion. WikIan (talk) 22:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
WikIan, ViperSnake151, "Surface RT" is the common name according to Google Trends. [88] TheHoax (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
WikIan, you have NOT proved that either "first generation Surface" or "Surface (first generation)" is more popular than "Surface RT". Quite the contrary. Google Trends is right here: [89]
Indrek, you said "I see where you're coming from, but I remain unconvinced by your arguments. "Surface RT" might "win hands down" if it were still the actual name of the product, but the simple truth is that it's not."
I don't see how being an old name is relevant. Wikipedia does NOT say to not use old name. Sure, usually a new name is preferred if the new name is unambiguous. TheHoax (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
@TheHoax: You've literally taken the same link and claimed a different result. The graphs are the same, and "Surface RT" has had more queries/mentions than the other terms given. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
ViperSnake151 Mistake in identity? I was making the case that the "Surface RT" is in fact the most common name. TheHoax (talk) 02:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
...whoops! I guess I kind of got a bit confused there ViperSnake151  Talk  02:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
@ViperSnake151 Ya. The whole time before now, everyone else was playing "I just don't like it" politics while I back my position with data. For whatever reasons, "I just don't like it" politics seems to be prevailing. TheHoax (talk) 02:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

How can you even take Google Trends as proof? That only takes headlines and does not necessarily reflect the common name. In addition TheHoax, you are forgetting that most consumers will simply search "surface" or "surface tablet" wanting what you call the Surface RT and what Microsoft actually calls, and so many other people, the Surface. Unfortunately for us, Surface is not an option because it is too ambiguous. Therefore Surface (first generation) is the best option for the title. As for use within the articles, Surface is fine when listing the tablets next to each other or within enough context. And the use of first-gen/first generation Surface or Surface tablet is perfectly fine. At this time I believe we can go ahead and request for admin closure on this consensus. WikIan (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

WikIan, how do you know what most users are going to search for? Are you a mind reader? TheHoax (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
You avoided my question. How do you know people searching for the first-gen Surface tablet will use "Surface RT", what about the others using Surface or Surface tablet? WikIan (talk) 04:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I do not know if people looking for the Surface RT are searching for "Surface" or "Surface tablet" because either term can also refer to the entirely family and is therefore ambiguous. I can only determine if people are more likely to search for "Surface RT" than "Surface (first generation)" or "first generation Surface". My reasoning is based on not know nor needing to know such information. TheHoax (talk) 05:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Logic 101: There are 4 things. I only know 3 of them so I choose the best of the 3 that I do know. TheHoax (talk)
Now that I've answered that question, I want to know: How do you know? TheHoax (talk) 05:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I know that Surface (first generation) absolutely is unambiguous, thus following Wikipedia guidelines, Surface is just as useful with context as is first generation Surface. It is similar to the iPad article naming scheme, and an added bonus? It's the new and correct name. Think about if Microsoft is no longer using the branding anymore, why use it? Look at [90]. Obviously hotmail is the more common name of outlook.com, but it is old branding. See WP:5P5, it must be flexible to meet the needs. It is 5 against 2, consensus has been reached..
Let me add one more thing from WP:POVNAME "Article titles and redirects should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess and balance that with what readers expect to be taken to. " Surface RT is probably the third common name after Surface and Microsoft Surface, so it simply redirects to the Surface page, which is therefore too ambiguous so we must use parenthetical disambiguation. Your argument:
  • "It's more common" No, it's not compare to "Surface"
  • "It's shorter" So what? You just want to type less, there is no guideline saying it has to be the shortest
  • "It's more concise" Look at WP:CONCISE notice Oprah Winfrey is longer than Oprah
  • "It's ambiguous" How? As I have stated before I've heard Surface 2 be called Surface RT 2 (hint: do not say this is a fairy tale again it makes you sound more ridiculous
  • "It can be used as the same throughout the article" Surface is shorter than Surface RT AND with context e.g in a list or table why add RT in the first place
I will not reply to this discussion anymore (as long as TheHoax keeps being ignorant in his "evidence" and his blatant disregard for what other editors have said).WikIan (talk) 07:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Like ViperShank151 said, all I hear is "I don't like it". And that's precisely what makes engaging in a discussion with you so frustrating - any argument you cannot actually refute you simply dismiss as "invalid" or turn into a strawman. I can't speak for other involved editors, but personally I have accepted several of your arguments when they're true (e.g. "Surface RT" being concise and commonly used), and have made every attempt to assume good faith on your part, despite you dipping to dangerously low levels of the talk page behaviour pyramid, but now it's become obvious that you're suffering from a serious case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I, too, will not reply to this particular discussion anymore, since its only purpose is to pretend the previous discussion never happened, and I've better things to do with my time than to pander to such a charade. Indrek (talk) 07:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I know that Surface (first generation) absolutely is unambiguous, thus following Wikipedia guidelines, Surface is just as useful with context as is first generation Surface. And what about the "Surface RT". It is absolutely unambiguous anywhere?
It is similar to the iPad article naming scheme, and an added bonus? It's the new and correct name. And you keep going back to the iPad? If you want to make the Surface like the iPad article, you have to put Surface (first generation) in the table, which you aren't doing. The fact of the matter is that these two are not the same.
Obviously hotmail is the more common name of outlook.com, but it is old branding. And? The name Outlook.com unambiguous. I doubt that anyone reading the title could think that it is something else.
Let me add one more thing from WP:POVNAME "Article titles and redirects should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess and balance that with what readers expect to be taken to. " Surface RT is probably the third common name after Surface and Microsoft Surface, so it simply redirects to the Surface page, which is therefore too ambiguous so we must use parenthetical disambiguation. The matter of fact is that you do not know. I do know the readers are more likely for "Surface RT" than "first generation Surface" or "Surface (first generation)" Also your "ProposedTitle already redirects here" argument is unconstructive and against the rule WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.
"It's more common" No, it's not compare to "Surface" ...which is ambiguous.
"It's shorter" So what? You just want to type less, there is no guideline saying it has to be the shortest Oh look!: WP:NC
"It's more concise" Look at WP:CONCISE notice Oprah Winfrey is longer than Oprah It's more concise, but it is no longer unambiguous. If the article is only talking about one person with the name Oprah, then the name "Oprah" would be unambiguous.
"It's ambiguous" How? As I have stated before I've heard Surface 2 be called Surface RT 2 (hint: do not say this is a fairy tale again it makes you sound more ridiculous That's an anecdotal evidence. I have heard people called Surface Pro 3, Surface Pro 2, Surface 2, and Surface Pro (first generation), and Surface RT just "Surface". What's your point? Anecdotal evidence is hardly reliable.
"It can be used as the same throughout the article" Surface is shorter than Surface RT AND with context e.g in a list or table why add RT in the first place "Surface RT" is unambiguously everywhere. It doesn't need all the context.
"as long as TheHoax keeps being ignorant in his "evidence" and his blatant disregard for what other editors have said. At least I have verifiable evidence. You don't. What you have is an anecdotal evidence. TheHoax (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
The argument for those in favor of "Surface (first generation)" is as the follow:
1. Most people looking for the Surface RT will search for just "Surface".
*I don't see anyone has posted data that backed this up.
*This name can't be use anyway because "Surface" refers to the entire series of the Surface tablets.
2. If the name cannot be "Surface", the next best alternative is "Surface (first generation)"
*The next most likely name someone is likely to search for is "Surface RT" not "Surface (first generation)"
3. It doesn't matter since "Surface RT" redirects to "Surface (first generation) anyway.
*This is listed as an example of a non-constructive oppose argument of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.
TheHoax (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I can't speak for other involved editors, but personally I have accepted several of your arguments when they're true (e.g. "Surface RT" being concise and commonly used).

Indrek, fine. I did not realized that other editors have accepted these arguments: "Surface RT" has more Naturalness and Conciseness. "Surface RT" is a Natural disambiguation which is preferred to "Surface (first generation)" which is a Parenthetical disambiguation.

I accept your argument that "Surface (first generation)" has more Consistency.

Where do you want to go from here? TheHoax (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's talk about each of the following point.
Recognizability
Naturalness
Precision
Conciseness
Consistency
Disambiguation
TheHoax (talk) 16:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
WikIan PaleAqua Please address each of the 6 points above in accordance with Wikipedia's guideline. TheHoax (talk) 23:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I told you I would not reply, but...
Recognizability: Surely Surface is more recognizable than Surface RT?!
Naturalness. What can be more natural then first-generation Surface? It clearly describes what it is. Whoever is reading this article may not know what "RT" is. Do YOU even know what it stands for?
Precision: Very precise, RT can be RT or RT 2 as I said earlier
Conciseness: Isn't this the same as precision?
Consistency: OK, I give you this. But what do you think about Surface, Surface 2, and Surface 3. See? Seems more consistent than Surface RT, Surface 2, and Surface 3.
Disambiguation: If ppl really search for Surface RT (the second most common name) then we simply redirect them to the first-gen Surface page. Plain and simple. WikIan (talk) 23:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
WikIan Can you cite please cite your sources? You can make all the arguments you want, but you need to provide sources to back it up. For example, "Surely Surface is more recognizable than Surface RT?!" How do you know that? Also, conciseness is not the same thing as precision. See here: WP:NC "If ppl really search for Surface RT (the second most common name) then we simply redirect them to the first-gen Surface page. Plain and simple. This is listed as an a common example of "I just don't like it": WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT TheHoax (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Microsoft_Surface/Archive_2&oldid=1083525660"