Talk:Surface Book

Delete discussion

I don't often contribute to Wikipedia (lack of time) but Marking this page for deletion is some form of insanity. You couldn't get a more public impactful announcement of a new product than today's presentaion in New York. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.168.48.56 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 6 October 2015‎ (UTC)

agree, it was overly aggressive, because the product is at the top of Microsoft home page website. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 17:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox should NOT be removed from this article, unless you can remove it from the iPhone 6S and MacBook (Retina) first without anyone complaining! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Stop with the WP:OWNership. The removal was simply the consequence of this article having been re-written. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Apologies if I messed anything up just now. I got an edit conflict and didn't know this discussion was happening already.Fench (talk) 22:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Laptop or tablet?

I think it's worth having this discussion now. The page currently calls it as a tablet - I'm not sure if I agree with this for a few reasons:

• Significant hardware components are contained in the base - the majority of the battery capacity and in some models, the dedicated GPU
• Nearly all of the expansion ports (USB, DisplayPort) are found on the base. Only the headphone jack can be found on the tablet portion.

I feel this differentiates it from other devices that are designed as a tablet with laptop-like features (eg, Surface Pro 4, even others like the Asus Transformer and HP Spectre 13 x2). Unlike these devices, the tablet is secondary to the base, not the other way round.

It's also classified as a laptop in all of Microsoft's releases.

--Strata8 (talk) 14:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Another thing that differentiates the Surface Book from the Surface Pro 4 (both categorised as "2-in-1 detachable tablets") is the inclusion of a hinge and base that can completely support the screen/tablet, allowing use of the device in the form a traditional laptop. The ASUS Transformer and HP Spectre 13 x2 would then both fall into the same category. The Surface Pro series in comparison requires a kickstand and would never be mistaken for anything but a tablet.

Personally I don't see why the distinction has to be made between "2-in-1 detachable laptops/tablets" (eg, Surface Book, ASUS Transformer) and "2-in-1 non-detachable laptops" (eg, Lenovo Yoga). The Lenovo Yoga is currently classified as a 2-in-1 convertible tablet laptop which just sounds silly. I'd simplify it and group them into "2-in-1 laptop" (Surface Book, Transformer, Yoga) and "2-in-1 tablet" (Surface Pro, Lenovo Miix) categories. The linked article would then describe the different forms of each. Both of these even could go even under a "2-in-1 computer" article.

The media are also largely referring to it as a laptop:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9694/microsoft-reveals-the-surface-book
http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/computers/microsoft-unveils-lumia-950-and-950-xl-smartphones-and-surface-book-its-first-ever-laptop-in-hardware-blowout-20151006-gk2uoq.html
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/07/microsoft-surface-book-laptop-tablet-apple-macbook-pro
http://www.engadget.com/2015/10/06/microsoft-surface-book-hands-on/
http://techreport.com/news/29156/surface-book-is-microsoft-take-on-what-the-laptop-should-be

--Strata8 (talk) 11:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Strata8: it is good you have raised the issue here. The Talk:Laplet have an ongoing discussion how to refer to these kind of devices. Please feel free to join and express your opinion.

As for Surface Book, it is 2-in-1. What part of it is more prominent, laptop part or tablet part is not very crucial. In my opinion, even considering the fact pretty much of the components, I/O ports included, is located in the keyboard part, none of them are essential for device to work. Main components: CPU, memory and others, located in the tablet part. This is opposed to a traditional laptop design, where all of the critical components are located in the base.

Resume: Surface Book may be called a 2-in-1, a 2-in-1 laptop or a 2-in-1 tablet — all terms are suitable and right. If one asks me, I prefer the latter. TranslucentCloud (talk) 12:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Add "The Verge" to @Strata8 list of media referring to the Surface Book as Laptop.

http://www.theverge.com/2015/10/6/9466091/microsoft-event-recap-video-surface-book-pro-4-lumia

  "Microsoft finally made a laptop"

http://www.theverge.com/2015/10/6/9461569/microsoft-surface-book-feature-comparison-ipad-macbook-surface-pro-4

  "Then there's the Surface Book, which has easily attracted the most attention. It's Microsoft's play for the high-end laptop market. It's a full power laptop that has a detachable screen for use as a tablet "
  "Is the Surface Book competing with the MacBook Pro? Yeah, that's about right."

@TranslucentCloud: Thanks, I've added my thoughts to that page. --Strata8 (talk) 13:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I have added my comments to the "Laplet" page but my opinion is I don't think Surface Book should have "Tablet" in the category name since the keyboard base is not optional in the use of the product, whereas "2-in-1 tablets" can be used 100% independent from the keyboard. The screen on Surface Book is recharged from the base so the screen can not be used a standalone tablet. I also don't think it should be called a "Laplet" since this term has not caught on as common terminology in the press or industry. Kernel Patch (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

There are several misunderstandings about the Surface Book in above comments that needs to be corrected before people decide on this

1. Zero hardware components to make the Surface Book function are found in the keyboard. The normal models have all components in the tablet. Only the most expensive model have an extra GPU in the keyboard.

2. The Surface Book tablet like any tablet can be charged independently from the keyboard. https://www.reddit.com/r/Surface/comments/3nrdfb/it_would_appear_that_the_surface_book_tablet_can/

3. Company marketing should never dictate how Wiki describes a device. Microsoft most likely have a big interest in promoting this device as a laptop since it differentiates it more from the Surface Pro and in peoples minds makes it more of a competitor to the MacBook Pro as was heavily promoted at the Microsoft device event.

4. Several other similar 2-in-1 tablets from other manufactureres have been described by the same media as above as just that, 2-in-1 tablets, and this device should not be treated differently. http://www.engadget.com/2015/05/08/asus-transformer-book-t300-chi-review/

5. The only-the-headphone-jack-and-charging-port-is-found-on-the-tablet argument is not an argument since most tablets only have a headphone jack and charging port.

6. The tablet has an active digitizer with a stylus which suggests that a major use case of this device would be as a tablet.

User:Us456879 21:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

There is conflicting information in the link you provided for 2., this is a quote: "I just chatted with "Sheyanna L" at Microsoft Store support, and she says that there is NOT a Surface Connect port in the tablet portion and that "there is no way to just charge the tablet without it being connected to the keyboard." Until it is confirmed that the included power supply can power the tablet portion I don't think it can be stated as a fact. Kernel Patch (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

http://www.windowscentral.com/everything-weve-learned-about-surface-bookUser:Us456879 21:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Briliant compilation of facts. This all proves, that despite Microsoft's advertising and positioning of Surface Book as a laptop, it is in fact a tablet. 2-in-1 detachable tablet. TranslucentCloud (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Item 4. The Engadget linked article refers to the Chi as a "Laptop/Tablet Hybrid" in the introduction and a "Hybrid PC" in the Summary. The term "Hybrid" is emphasized in this article, not "2-in-1 tablet". Kernel Patch (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Searching the article for tablet and ignoring the first "laptop/tablet hybrid" results in 13 hits that all refer to the device itself. Searching for laptop yields 6 results that all refers to other devices. User:Us456879 15:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

By the way, 2-in-1 is a subset of a hybrid (tablet or laptop). Hybrids are just convertible tablets/laptops, that didn't get all the features of 2-in-1's (Android devices for example). So you can refer to the 2-in-1 as a Hybrid, but the use of a former is more precise. TranslucentCloud (talk) 07:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of what Microsoft's marketing says, the majority of the press and public are referring to the Surface Book as a "laptop", as I linked above. Very few call it a "2-in-1 tablet", and I have not seen a single person use the phrase "2-in-1 detachable tablet" in relation to the SB. You could argue that this is thanks to the marketing, and you might be right, but ultimately it comes down to what term is commonly used. I can't see any real justification in using the term "2-in-1 tablet" beyond trying to educate the public in the proper use of a term that is very poorly defined anyway. --Strata8 (talk) 00:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

This is just stupid straight through. A lot of people refer to a smartphone as an iPhone (maybe different in different countries), does that mean a smartphone should be called iPhone on wikipedia? No. User:Us456879 15:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

A lot of people might refer to any smartphone as an iPhone, but I'd hesitate to say that the majority of people do. Certainly you don't have a situation where 90% of the media are referring to the new Galaxy S6 as an iPhone, as is the case with the Surface Book. --Strata8 (talk) 01:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Us456879 This is not a fair argument, the iPhone is a product brand, what is being discussed is the generic device type of "Laptop" as it relates to Surface Book which is a fair discussion given it looks and functions just like a laptop until you remove the screen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kernel Patch (talk • contribs) 02:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The thing is that Surface Book indeed looks like a laptop with a keyboard part attached, yet Microsoft advertises is as a laptop, obviously (successfully, hence this discussion) trying to segregate its devices. But when you try to scrupulously categorize this device, it is anything, but not a laptop. TranslucentCloud (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@TranslucentCloud I'm not sure how you concluded in such strong terms that this is "anything, but not a laptop". It appears to have been designed with 100% laptop features and capabilities, marketed and sold as a laptop and it is described in the press as a laptop. Also I don't think it's a stretch that most purchasers of this device would view it as a 2-in-1 laptop in form and function. I'm leaning towards 2-in-1 or 2-in-1 laptop as the category for this device and away from "2-in-1 tablet" or "Laplet". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kernel Patch (talk • contribs) 02:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

It's obviously, that the press is inclined to call a device accordingly to how it was marketed by a manufacturer. Microsoft marketed its thing as a laptop and a typical journalist do not see the reason to classify the device himself. Microsoft already done this and this seems legit. Any Surface Pro "has been designed with 100% laptop features and capabilities", but is this makes it a laptop? TranslucentCloud (talk) 07:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The Surface Pro series are tablets that have an optional magnetically attached floppy hinge keyboard which is quite different than the Surface Book or anything classified as a laptop. These differences strongly suggest they should be in two different classes of devices. The press doesn't always parrot marketing, if it didn't have 100% characteristics of a laptop in form and capability, I don't think they would go along with Microsoft's positioning. For example I haven't noticed the press calling it the "Ultimate Laptop" which is what Microsoft is calling it, but more commonly a laptop. Kernel Patch (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course, no one sane journalist would call Surface Book the "Ultimate Laptop". TranslucentCloud (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

On further thought I'd actually be happy with just keeping the current "2-in-1" on its own. Given the inconsistency in the press as to whether something is a "tablet" or "laptop", I'm not sure if the distinction necessarily needs to be made. --Strata8 (talk) 02:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

2-in-1 term seems not very representative, because one not familiar with the case cannot instantly realize what two pieces of this puzzle are, but considering the common misrepresentation of the press and vendors, seems like the 2-in-1 is the most neutral term. TranslucentCloud (talk) 07:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Unmotivated rollbacks of quality content: edit warring warning

Dear User:ViperSnake151, please bother yourself a little and explain why you rolled back Surface-series integrated quality version and replaced it with the current content. rv; disruptive edit, promotional is not sufficient explanation. What you currently doing is start of the edit warring, which is not tolerated on Wikipedia. TranslucentCloud (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems this is a recurring issue with WP:MSFT editors on these pages - just look at Talk:Windows RT and Talk:Windows 10 Mobile. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

"Surface-series integrated quality version" just screams WP:OWNership, which is also not tolerated on Wikipedia. You don't run the show on any article, regardless of how much unification or "integration" you want. It says above the edit window that "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone". My edits also use cleaner wording and structure. I've edited a wider variety of articles, and have gotten quite a few on technology-related topics to GA status. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I repeat, I am not an author of the unified concept, so your accusations of WP:OWN are utterly unreasonable. I do not know anything about your probable contributions to GA-articles, and judge what I can see here, in the Surface Book article. What have attracted my attention:

• unnecessary extended backstage story of what Panos Panay and the team thought and did during the development phase — this is too promotional to be included in the online encyclopedia (well, and still you insist to call my edits promotional?). This is intended to give Surface Book a like nothing before charm? Why do people need to know Panos Panay at all?
• kickstand link points to motorcycle's kickstand — I think this is barely relevant.
• dubious statements, for example: Unlike other "2-in-1" devices, the Surface Book is designed to primarily be used as a laptop, rather than a tablet — does all 2-in-1's are designed with a laptop in mind?
• many, many citations (by the way, unproperly formatted) of Panos Panay. Looks like article is written by his devoted fan, not an independent editor.
• the main part of the article ("Hardware") is shrinked to three modest paragraphs. Seems like thoughts of Panos Panay are more important, than what is inside of the device.

I ask fellow editors for their 3rd party opinions. TranslucentCloud (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

How are citations unproperly formatted? Why are you criticizing the inclusion of background information that explains justification for aspects of its design? Why are you calling me a fanboy? ViperSnake151  Talk  19:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

1. Sorry I meant quotations (WP:QUOTE), not citations.
2. I am criticising the inclusion of background information that explains justification for aspects of its design merely because this information is overwhelming and often unnecessary in an online encyclopedia. It is actual hardware, which matters most, not some thoughts of design architect.
3. I am not calling you a fanboy, I am expressing opinion, that your version is a person-centric.

I think we can reach some kind of a compromise here. The established structure of Surface-series articles is good and yet some of your additions regarding the design are good too, so why not incorporate them into the History section? Let's collaborate, not confront. TranslucentCloud (talk) 07:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@ViperSnake151 your edits are WP:OWN and you are changing the article to conform to YOUR layout. Stop. We have a specific layout in place across all Surface articles. WikIan -(talk) 18:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

In addition, the keyboard part is not a "keyboard dock" and you left the sentence "The Surface Book is distinguished" lacking what it is distinguished from WikIan -(talk) 18:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I was building it out more in line with other articles; I actually prefer the idea of having Development > Specifications > Release > Reception be the format. Also, why are you insisting on not calling it a "keyboard dock" ("keyboard dock" is a common term)? Additionally, you misspelled it across the entire article as "keboard", by the way. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I have never heard it called "keyboard dock" because it's not a dock. There is a dock for the Surface Pro 3/4, that little box, but laptops don't have "docks". As for "building it out more in line with other articles" it didn't look like it because you changed the heading formats. Development, Specs, Release doesn't keep it in line with the other Surface device articles which are in line with the iPad articles. WikIan -(talk) 04:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Search Google and you'll see that "keyboard dock" is synonymous with accessories which tablets can dock to in order to provide a keyboard. Not to be confused with docking station, a means of incorporating a laptop into a desktop-like usage environment. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I know what you are implying, however, Microsoft never referred to the keyboard as a "dock" the docking station is what they refer to as the dock. Docking Stations can be for tablets or laptops and generally do not include a keyboard. A quick Google search shows a keyboard dock is for tablets as a keyboard accessory. This one is not sold separately and is definitely not a tablet. WikIan -(talk) 02:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with simply calling it a Keyboard since it is an integral part of the product, not an accessory like a dock might suggest. Kernel Patch (talk) 04:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

You undid my copyediting and replaced it with poorly-worded statements and uncited analysis of use cases. I'm afraid to edit it because you might consider it a deviation from the "standard Surface article format", and thus must revert it. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Known Issues

Wikipedia is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information, WP:NOTGUIDE for buyers and there is absolutely no reason to have a distinct "Known issues" section for each notable consumer product. It does not have any encyclopedic sense.

If there is some serious and persisting issue, which was not resolved across product hardware and/or software update cycles, the issue notoriety of which has been discussed a lot and analyzed in number of articles of respected authors, it does make encyclopedic sense and belongs to the Reception > Issues.

Refer to the iPad (3rd generation)#Issues for an example of a proper use and placement of the Issues section.TranslucentCloud (talk) 13:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

This is a persistent issue. Please, maintain a neutral point of view.

Oh, there is nothing to do with NPoV. It's just a common sense and it's somehow missed. I still do not see persistent and critical nature of this issue, since it evidently rarely appears, but anyway. Let it be. And since you disregarded my concern about a proper place for the Issues subsection, I'll do it myself. TranslucentCloud (talk) 14:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be a bit of an slow edit war going on about this at least back to November. I strongly suggest continuing this discussion or bring in either a more formal discussion ( such as an RfC ) or possibly one of the suggestions at resolving content disputes with outside help. PaleAqua (talk) 07:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Fixed issues are not forbidden from Wikipedia. Could you provide an explanation for your removal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.3.100 (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I didn't remove it and haven't made any edits to this article. I asked for those adding and removing it to discuss it here instead of edit warring. The issues I can see against including it are possible undue weight concerns. Also see criticism which suggest that such criticism should be integrated with the rest of the article. In this case it would probably be better to mention the issue and fix near the battery life claims if at all. It would probably be good to include the results of third party on battery life from reliable sources along with the numbers from Microsoft. PaleAqua (talk) 02:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

"Fixed issues" are not explicitly forbidden from Wikipedia. Non-encyclopedic data is forbidden. Things like fixed issues, past packaging and box contents, history of partnumbers and software versions are non-encyclopedic data, which should not be included in articles, per WP:IINFO. You think different? Prove me wrong. TranslucentCloud (talk) 11:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Please, read WP:IINFO. There is nothing in WP:IINFO that forbids past problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.79.194 (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually I read it. Sure, there is no line "past problems are forbidden", but if you try to comprehend what it is all about, you'll see that "past problems" fall into category of Wikipedia's unwanted content. TranslucentCloud (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean that the history of any Wikipedia article should be removed? Would you be OK if we move that to an history section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.147.224 (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I didn't get how this case related to the "history of any Wikipedia article" (and what exactly is "history of any Wikipedia article"). Do you mean revision history? TranslucentCloud (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

For example, some notable person had problems with drugs in the past but he is clean now. Is that allowed in the history section of his article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.5.2 (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Life of notable persons is regulated by WP:BLP. I'm not sure why you try to compare a person with a computer, this is really looks weird to me. Can you say anything meaningful in defense of your opinion about "past issues"? TranslucentCloud (talk) 08:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

We are not discussing here if the article is notable or not, but if an historic event should be removed or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.174.244 (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It seems more on if discussion of a battery bug that was fixed is undue weight or not. Almost any piece of software that is used and supported will have a history of numerous bug fixes, OSes and firmware included. Just because an issue happened and/or was fix does not inherently make it notable for inclusion. The articles are not support pages or knowledge bases for issue. BTW when commenting on talk pages you should sign your post by adding four tildas i.e. ~~~~ at the end of your comments. PaleAqua (talk) 03:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure, we're not discussing here if the article is notable, since it is obvious that it is. What we discuss here is a whether or not it is needed to include a "historic event" in this article. By the way, if it is a "historic event", maybe the proper place for it is in the "History" section? TranslucentCloud (talk) 09:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

So, it is OK if it is moved to the history section? In what Wikipedia article should this discussion be settled? So we can make other articles coherent. 92.29.150.105 (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

No, it was just sarcasm, resolved issues don't have make it to the "History" section. TranslucentCloud (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I have filed a formal dispute resolution request here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Surface_Book. TranslucentCloud (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:IINFO and WP:UNDUE do not apply here. Please provide a valid explanation to remove this content, or your blanking will be reverted. Tandrewmark (talk) 10:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, User:Tandrewmark. Can you please elaborate a bit and elucidate why they do not apply? Just stating, that they don't, will not resolve the dispute. TranslucentCloud (talk) 10:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Because this is not an indiscriminate collection of information and because hiding this information prevents this article from being neutral, this is not a minority view when even Microsoft recognized the problem and fixed it. Tandrewmark (talk) 10:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

What on Earth makes this the long-fixed software bug a discriminate information? Why it should be listed on Wikipedia? Why exactly this bug, not hundreds of others? Microsoft acknowledges a lot of bugs, especially those, which they had fixed, but this doesn't make these bugs outstanding. This is not a minority view, this is plain and simply the information most readers doesn't care at all. It simply does not make any encyclopedic sense. TranslucentCloud (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Because this was an important issue that Microsoft took a long time to fix and there are reliable sources. That you do not care about something, does not mean other people does not care. Please, maintain neutrality in Wikipedia. Tandrewmark (talk) 10:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, if we assume that this bug is an important issue, does it make encyclopedic sense anyway? If yes, why? TranslucentCloud (talk) 11:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

This is history. People are interested in knowing how fast a manufacturer was to fix issues in their products to decide to buy products in the future. Are you implying that history should be banned from Wikipedia? Tandrewmark (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's finally your genuine rationale, thanks. While editing Wikipedia you consider the product article a buying guide. That's not the case. Wikipedia is WP:NOTGUIDE. So please stop adding information which makes Wikipedia guide for buyers, there are plenty of sites in the Internet which provide superb buying guides. TranslucentCloud (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Is this a 'famous' bug? Is any press coverage that mentions the Surface Book also likely to take note of the bug? You could review other Wikipedia articles on similar devices to see if and when bugs are mentioned in their articles. As an admin, I am only interested in seeing that dispute resolution is followed, and I take no position on the issue. EdJohnston (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes this is a 'famous' bug. Take a look at the references provided. There are many reliable sources about it. As an example where multiple fixed bugs are referenced in other Wikipedia articles, see Windows 10 Mobile. I can provide you a more comprehensive list of Wikipedia articles where fixed bugs are referenced. Tandrewmark (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Although this particular bug was 'famous', I personally don't think we should blindly copycat other articles' structure. Wikipedia has a broad set of strict rules and guidelines. Let's stick to them, and not to some actual articles, which may be far from perfect. Ultimately, maybe this article will be a template for others if the similar issue arises in other parts of Wikipedia. TranslucentCloud (talk) 08:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The notion that resolved issues should in general not be included, should not be considered "encyclopedic", is absurd. There are many cases where the history of a thing - even, sometimes especially, including false starts and "fixed issues" - helps provide insight into the thing's characteristics, design, relationship to other things, etc. And @TranslucentCloud:, you need to do a lot less in the way of "argument by vigorous assertion" and more in the way of precise arguments. Example: You keep claiming that IINFO precludes the inclusion of "resolved issues," but there is nothing I see in IINFO that can be interpreted in that way. IINFO has four points, and the only one that even comes close is point 4, "Exhaustive logs of software updates." But a description of one fixed problem is hardly an "exhaustive log of updates", and it was backed by "reliable third-party (not self-published or official) sources". Point 4 does warn that "Common sense must be applied with regard to the level of detail to be included", but that can be taken both ways: in some cases "common sense" should dictate inclusion. In short when citing policy and guidelines you need to do a lot better than handwaves like this one: "if you try to comprehend what it is all about, you'll see that "past problems" fall into category of Wikipedia's unwanted content." You need to show explicitly how the P or G supports your position, not just repeatedly claim that it does and suggest that if others can't see it they're just not trying hard enough. Jeh (talk) 13:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jeh: oh, finally our issue have got some attention. I'll answer to your points. Regarding "resolved issues are non-encyclopedic". I didn't stated, that all resolved issues are non-encyclopedic, just this one. Of course there are cases in which such issues are relevant, important and even form the base of an article. This does not apply to this article. Regarding WP:IINFO. I didn't stated, that it "precludes the inclusion of resolved issues". Instead, I said multiple times, that Wikipedia is not WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information (WP:IINFO is just another alias for WP:INDISCRIMINATE). I still consider, that fixed (and actually yet to be fixed too, but it's out of the question now) bug lists are redundant for online encyclopedias and should not be included. Have another opinion? That's great, we waited for some third party opinion for months and finally there is a decent chance to get it. TranslucentCloud (talk) 13:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Could you explain why the fixed issues documented at Windows 10 Mobile#Version history that do not event have independent sources are more important that this one? If they are less important, will you remove them? Tandrewmark (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

So, @Tandrewmark:. Having agreed at talk:Windows 10 Mobile to cease WP:DISRUPTing the Windows 10 Mobile article to make a point here, you are now apparently trying to goad @TranslucentCloud: into doing the disruption for you? The cases are not at all comparable. I once again strongly urge you to argue this case here, on its own merits as discussed here, and not try to muddy the waters with concerns about other articles. Jeh (talk) 04:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Could you explain why they are not comparable? I just want to reach a consensus of what is acceptable in Wikipedia and what not. Tandrewmark (talk) 06:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Tandrewmark: Sure. Here we have a discussion over the inclusion, or not, of a single relatively short paragraph (under 500 characters; likely under 80 words) about one issue in a released product, an issue that was fixed after release. And the point of discussion centers on inclusion of an issue that no longer exists in the product, but certainly was important when it showed up (enough to get at least one notable reviewer to dis-recommend the product, even though he liked it otherwise). On the other hand: Over at Windows 10 Mobile you deleted the entire "Version history" section—over 80,000 characters. You deleted not only some mentions of old, fixed issues, but much other material. You justified this based on your apparent belief that the conclusion here was not just about one specific past issue, but that all history should be excluded. That was completely unwarranted.

Even if we only consider each "fixed issue" there individually, we would need to examine each one individually to determine whether it merits inclusion.

More generally: This discussion will not result in a consensus about "what is acceptable in Wikipedia and what not." With rare exceptions, consensus achieved in a discussion at one article cannot be blindly applied to point issues at other articles, because the circumstances are almost always at least somewhat different (in this case, they would be very different). If you want to discuss site-wide policies or guidelines, you want to be in the talk page of a policy or guideline page. Jeh (talk) 07:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

To @TranslucentCloud: You wrote: "Regarding WP:IINFO. I didn't stated, that it "precludes the inclusion of resolved issues". Oh, yes, you did. You wrote "if you try to comprehend what it [ WP:IINFO ] is all about, you'll see that "past problems" fall into category of Wikipedia's unwanted content." Here's the diff. Please explain your denial.

@Jeh: I wrote "past problems" fall into category of Wikipedia's unwanted content which is my understanding of the guideline. I didn't wrote "it precludes the inclusion of resolved issues", implying that this issue is extensively covered in guidelines. It's not and hence this dispute. TranslucentCloud (talk) 08:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, please. Don't waste our time with these "oh, I didn't say that exactly" protests. And there is no way that the one phrase "implies extensive coverage" whereas the other does not. Jeh (talk) 09:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't waste my time trying to find inconsistencies in my statements. I know there are a lot of them, but they don't make any sense. What make sense is the issue itself. Try to be more concrete and provide your opinion on the subject. TranslucentCloud (talk) 09:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I've already provided my opinion. I'm trying to consider yours, but now there is question as to just what your opinion is. Why should I, or anyone, spend time discussing with someone who admits that their statements are internally inconsistent and that as such they don't make any sense? Let's start over: Is it still your opinion that WP:IINFO, or any other P or G for that matter, include "past problems" in the category of Wikipedia's unwanted content? If not, you just collapsed your entire argument. If that is your opinion, then you need to cite the P or G in question and show in detail how it supports your opinion. And if you can't do that, or if what you say is self-contradictory (or otherwise doesn't "make any sense"), then your opinion doesn't matter. Just saying "it's my opinion" or "it's unencyclopedic" (possibly one of the most overused and unspecific arguments seen on Wikipedia) is not enough. There are a tremendous number of articles here that include reporting of "past problems" of everything from cars to political systems, so you're arguing against a lot of precedent. Jeh (talk) 01:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have a general policy or guideline re. whether fixed bugs or problems merit inclusion on Wikipedia. (You used the word "redundant". Redundant with what? Do you understand what that word means?) This particular case doesn't involve the "bug list" you mentioned (nor has this ever been about a "bug list", so where did that come from?), but rather a specific issue in a released product that was serious enough to motivate a reviewer to disrecommend the product. That raises it well above the usual items in a typical list of fixed bugs and other revisions.

More generally: there is much precedent for describing "fixed issues" of products. The pages for many cars and car manufacturers, for example, include mention of significant recalls in the car or manufacturer's history. This battery life bug seems to me to be comparable, and therefore justified for inclusion. If you still disagree you need to do more than just say "it's not encyclopedic!" Clearly many, many similar things are considered encyclopedic here, so you're going to have to be much more specific to justify your opinion. Right now it looks to me as if you just don't like it. Jeh (talk) 08:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems like User talk:TranslucentCloud cannot provide valid counterarguments. It is OK to revert his blankings? Tandrewmark (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere on this page I think it would be better if someone else did it. (And PaleAqua has done so, with improvements, for which thanks.) If you did it it would be less likely to "stick." Jeh (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you all for preventing this blanking. Please, remember to also revert the blanking at Surface Pro 4 as it also had the issue. Tandrewmark (talk) 06:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A Third Opinion has been requested. It is difficult to offer a third opinion for two reasons, but I will try. First, the questions are not concise or focused. Second, on its face this looks like a dispute among multiple editors. If I didn't know that IP addresses jump all over the map, I would decline it for that reason. As it is, I only very strongly advise the unregistered editor to register, and, in particular, to register if they plan to pursue dispute resolution in the future. If the question is whether there should be an Issues section, other consumer products often have one. Even if the issues have been resolved, their inclusion is history. If that isn't the question, please re-ask the question, which I am closing as answered. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: thanks for your input. There is an ongoing dispute between me and some unregistered editor. The question is not whether there should or not be the "Issues" section, it definitely should, but whether or not we should "stack" resolved issues there. The launch of a complex hi-tech product is typically accompanied by a plethora of different bugs and issues, and I believe there is room in Wikipedia only for those recurring and notorious ones, per WP:IINFO and WP:UNDUE. Most issues have no encyclopedic value, especially those resolved by a routine software update. TranslucentCloud (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

In that case, the question wasn't clearly stated and wasn't answered as meant. You may ask it again, or you may request moderated dispute resolution, or you may originate a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

This is now about the past, but when you are expected to notify another editor, you really should notify the other editor. Once again, the unregistered editor is very strongly advised that they should register an account, especially if they want to use dispute resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I filed for a dispute resolution and put the last known IP of other editor as the second party in this dispute. Not sure if it'll make any sense and if he'll get any notification though, especially it's obvious that he's got a dynamic IP. TranslucentCloud (talk) 10:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, guys.

I understand your problem is about one paragraph seen in revision 722362273. My opinion is that there is nothing wrong with it. i.e., neither the word nor the spirit of WP:IINFO, WP:NOTGUIDE or WP:UNDUE have anything to do with it. If anything, it goes towards comprehensiveness required by WP:FACR. That said, this edit war over such a trifle is far worse the damage of omitting or the benefit of including it. If you people don't know how to reach a compromise or consensus over such a trifle, how are you ever supposed to help with anything major in Wikipedia?

If I were TranslucentCloud I'd have either left the matter well alone a long time ago (as a compromise) or would have invited additional parties to this discussion via WikiProjects or RFC. Even at the times when one of the involved parties is refusing to participate in consensus-building, the consensus can be still built with the help of other community members in order to legitimately deal with non-participants.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

So, what is going to happen in the meanwhile. Are you going to revert User talk:TranslucentCloud blankings until he can provide a valid argument to remove it, or are you going to allow to keep Wikipedia inconsistent while User talk:TranslucentCloud thinks more bogus arguments to hide this information? Tandrewmark (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Once discussion reaches a consensus someone will probably will a change to the articles reflecting the consensus but there is no hurry. And I recommend that both you and TranslucentCloud avoid making the changes yourself unless you both agree to it. PaleAqua (talk) 03:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

As to my opinion, I think that the issue is notable, but that it probably should be balanced with additional information about the battery and battery life if possible. There is already coverage about the specs and how the Surface Book has two batteries, but would be nice to get third party sources on real world usage. If we do include an issue section, there have been other issues that probably also desire a mention such as the hello camera not turning on after a suspend. PaleAqua (talk) 03:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Could you add those issues to the page? Do you have references for those issues? Tandrewmark (talk) 06:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe he could, but the outcome here doesn't depend on that. Jeh (talk) 08:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find some more sources when I have more time and start putting together some stuff to add to the page. In the meantime here are some sources for power, hello and other issues if anyone else wants to start drafting together an issues section [1] [2]. [3] [4] [5]. Example of sources that can be used to balance things out [6]. Still need to find stuff that talks about battery life excluding ones that just focus on the shortened life with the fixed issue. ( BTW my {{pronoun}} is "she". :) ) PaleAqua (talk) 09:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: I agree on all points. I'd include it (to me it is directly parallel to mentions of product recalls, i.e. "fixed issues", in numerous other articles, e.g. car articles), but it's certainly not so important as to be worth the thousands of words expended here so far. The world isn't going to end because we do, or don't, include this battery life issue here. Not even the credibility of this article depends on that. I'd advise both TranslucentCloud and Tandrewmark to withdraw here and trust other, more experienced editors to do the right thing; they both appear far too entrenched and invested in their positions to "agree to disagree" themselves. I'd also strongly advise them both to not try to bring this or a similar dispute to other articles. Just walk away. Jeh (talk) 08:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with every word of your message! —Codename Lisa (talk) 11:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Since it seems like we are in agreement I did a first pass and incorporating some of the issues/fixes etc. Il think we still need more details in the hardware section. For example about the camera and battery life in particular. Some of this will probably need to be done to Surface Pro 4 but that page is currently fully protected after the RPP and it's probably best to start here anyways. PaleAqua (talk) 01:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks to PaleAqua for helping to close this. (and my apologies for the 'he' earlier) Jeh (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Please apply the correction below

Issues and fixes

Windows Hello

The a firmware update prevent the infrared camera failed to initialize after a suspend preventing Windows Hello from working correctly.[9] Firmware updates were issued in April and May to fix the camera.[10]

Battery Life

The device had an issue where it failed to sleep properly, draining the battery very quickly.[11] Microsoft developed a fix that was available on February 17, 2016.[12]

Above is the current text

Anyone see a problem with the words (if you can call them that) directly underneath the "Windows Hello" heading?

Per the format of the information under the heading "Battery Life", should read:

The device had an issue where the infrared camera failed to initialize after a suspend, preventing Windows Hello from working correctly. Microsoft developed fixes that were available on April (EXACT DATE) and May (EXACT DATE) [or in April and May of (YEAR)].

Thanks for confirming this! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qbertprime (talk • contribs) 04:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I've added the year. I don't know if more specific dates are available. In the future, you can request edits by using the template {{edit semiprotected}} and specifying the change you want made. This will notify more editors than the ones currently watching the page. clpo13_(talk) 22:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@Qbertprime: Does the update I made look better? PaleAqua (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Repairability of the Surface Book

How come there is nothing in this article on the Surface Book's repairability?

(By way of background I've been designing, building, maintaining, and repairing computers since 1962, portable computers since the late 1980s, and laptops since the early 1990s. I also founded and ran a company during 2000-2010 making miniature x86 computers. I'm accustomed to repairing whatever I'm currently using whenever it breaks, and therefore have experience with repairs to dozens of kinds of computers.)

A few months ago the display port on my high-end 2015 Surface Book (i7, 16GB, 512GB, dGPU) went on the blink, possibly due to a total solder meltdown in the badly designed connector of the 65W power adapter (the more recent 102W adapter I replaced it with is way cooler). This was merely annoying: in August I was the opening speaker at a conference in Brasilia and therefore had to revert to my older Sony Vai Pro 13. Then the other day a pin in the SD socket of my SB base came loose, rendering it useless. That was the last straw: with now two things broken in the base I decided it was time to fix them both.

Now older laptops are screwed together, which would have made it easy to fix both these problems. However the Surface Book is glued together, requiring heating to open it up. I had it half open when the heat ignited one of the batteries, which went off like a roman candle, melted some of the keyboard's keys, and sprayed carbon etc all over my workbench, wall, and nearby appliances, not to mention stinking the whole house to high heaven and prompting my wife to ask what chemicals it had deposited in our lungs and to demand I close the door to my workshop and air it out.

Normally when a part fails like that one buys a new one. If your car engine explodes you buy a new engine. But apparently Microsoft doesn't think like that. If the base half of your computer explodes, Microsoft says that you don't replace it, you buy a whole new computer at the new price of $3000, even though most of that money is for the perfectly functional tablet half with its i7 cpu, 16 GB of RAM, and 512 GB of storage where all of your data lives, and moreover which is what I'm typing on right now, using a very cute Microsoft bluetooth keyboard and mouse in lieu of the considerably heavier base.

Just imagine if Ford or GM said you had to replace the body of your car when its engine died.

On a scale of 1 to 10 for repairability I would therefore rate the Surface Book 1/10.

But I am not alone in that judgment. 1/10 is exactly the repairability rating of iFixit for the Surface Book.

While there are degrees of planned obsolescence, the Surface Book surely takes the cake! Vaughan Pratt (talk) 05:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Interesting story, but unfortunately irrelevant (unless your rating has been published in a reliable source).

As for the iFixit score, that could be mentioned in the Reception section. Feel free to do it yourself. Indrek (talk) 06:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

So mentioned. In the meantime I ordered the docking station, which conveniently plugs into the bottom of the clipboard (no need for the base) and am using it right now plugged into my (truly ancient) HP LP3065. That plus my old Sony Vaio Pro 13 when on the road will hold me until the Surface Book 2 comes out next month. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 01:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Microsoft-surface-book-wikipedia.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)