Talk:HTC Wizard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the HTC Wizard article.
Article policies
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Contents

[edit] Wrong picture

This picture don't represent HTC Wizard. Just search for Qtek 9100 or SPV M3000 and you will find the real image. I have in my hand this phone and I know it! I don't find how to change pictures from articles and I have no time now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dicocodino (talk • contribs) 14:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There are several different designs for HTC Wizards. The one in the photo is just one of several designs. Check out HTC's website here to see what I mean. Brianreading (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Software Compatibility?

is this the correct place for that info? There are hundreds of applications and programs and this article should be a summary on the product in question —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.205.103.41 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If you think it's inappropriate, feel free to be bold and remove it. I've given up trying to improve this article for now since I don't have time to deal with the attendant drama. Wibbble 19:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm removing software compatibility as well as all other unsourced information especially those by anonymous editors. It's original research, and this is against Wikipedia rules. Brianreading 05:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong redirection

The HTC Wallaby was sold in Europe as T-Mobile MDA and the american T-Mobile MDA is actually the HTC Wizard. Somebody should make some corrections... Rospaya 18:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the phone I have, yet I have a T-Mobile MDA Vario (bought in the Netherlands). At least, the image doesn't match. Did they really bother to give this thing a different look on different continents? I'm more inclined to believe these two are different phones.
I'll see if I can upload a picture when I get home. --62.131.200.58 15:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
If you have a Vario II it's a HTC Hermes. Wibbble 15:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I have a Cingular 8125, and I have seen the other models for different Cell phone carriers, and they all look different, but perform the same! Mazakar 18:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smartphone?

Type: Smartphone? Isn't a pocket PC.

It's running Windows Pocket PC, it has a touch screen and all the programs needed for a pocket PC... The only thing really subtracting fromt his is the 196 (ot so) mhz CPU that just does not cut it. Plus, the touch screen needs calibration all too often.

-> Spartphone is a general category contatining all mobile phone enabled multi-purspoes devices, or am I wrong? Just beacuse the OS name has not "Smartphone" tag does not mean WIZA is not a smartphone

There is a Pocket PC mention in the beginning of the definition. Why repeaing it, stating that Wizard is a "Pocket PC phone"? Wizard is a smartphone and it falls under the Wikipedia smartphone definition and is present in the Wikipedia's list of smartphones. I suggest changing that "Pocket PC phone" back to "smartphone". --schmalter 194.84.64.207 08:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] msn for free link

now seems to be dead - ive removed it and posted it here as a reminder in case anyone finds alternate info Tyhopho 20:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dead link

I removed this dead link: i-mate K-JAM, english. --Edcolins 12:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] customer complaints section

massively POV? im beginning to think that section definitely needs sources if it should stay. Tyhopho 01:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I own this phone myself and haven't had the first two listed issues. My screen is constantly aligned properly, and the slideout keyboard can be used with the dialler application to enter numbers, while the onscreen buttons are large enough to use your fingers on. Since I don't run an Exchange server I can't validate the third issue, and because I'm not using a T-Mobile model I can't verify the last either. As far as complexity goes, I haven't seen any issues. It's easier to do some things with than with other phones I've used, and a lot of support through websites and forums is available with a little searching(Down to specific applications for the phone that solve possible issues, and guides for others) Smoke 22:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the complaint about complexity is useless here. There is nothing specific about comlexity in Wizard's case. Or it is differrent in this issue from other smartphones? If not (and I suppose, than in fact it is not), that complexity issue should be added to Window Mobile or/and smartphone articles, and should be eliminated from this one. --schmalter 194.84.64.207 08:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

If some sort of references aren't added for this section, I'm going to remove it. As it stands, I'm going to trim some of the more obvious user-guide/how-to material. Note that verification of the issue by editors isn't appropriate, as that would be original research - what's needed are references of reliable sources showing that these criticisms are being made. Information on how to work-around or correct any defects are never appropriate for wikipedia, although links to sites with that information might be, in the external links section. Wibbble 19:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have this phone (the T-Mobile MDA). I like it. But it whines at 12 kHz, constantly. Anyone else? Joshua McGee (talk) 05:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Praise from Customers

I was bought this phone as a valentines day present from my fiancé last year, due to my other cell at the time being absolute garbage, and I've never been unhappy with it. The T-Mobile version of this phone is, at least to me, without problems. I'm an insanely high end techno-phile, so this phone was just the thing for me.

Durability? In spades. This cell has been dropped onto concrete and cement from about 2 feet up and nothing bad has happened so far. This has even been dropped into a puddle and all that happened was that I the mini-sd popped out and I lost the stylus. The phone acted strange, but after letting it air out completely (battery and sim card out, covers off) it works like new again.

Signal? Unless you're standing inside a grove of trees a druid would be proud of, it seems to get exelent service even in basements and elevators.

I cant seem to find any firmware updates for this.... so it hasnt been updated sense it was given to me. Anyone have a link to update it for me?

Check the T-mobile members section or http://www.xda-developers.com/ Syrion 17:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] updates?

This is the same phone I got just last week, only it didn't come with bubble breaker and rather than pocket msn came with windows live installed instead. Everything else was as mentioned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.9.45.107 (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Registry hacks section.

This section is clearly inappropriate for wikipedia, see: WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE:

Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes

The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles which read as textbooks, with leading questions and step-by-step problem solutions as examples

That perfectly describes the section I removed, and so I'm going to remove it again. Please don't re-add it without discussing it here first and presenting an argument for why WP:NOT doesn't apply in this case. Wibbble 19:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As an addition: this stuff also falls foul of WP:OR, since there's no sources cited for it - and I'm not even sure that a reliable source could be found. Just edit warring over this is really bad - there's been no discussion at all whatsoever. It's really poor show to just revert, revert, revert without ever participating in discussion. I've done my best to present my side here, and there's been no counters to it at all - just edit warring and petty vandalism elsewhere in 'retaliation'. Wibbble 18:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It takes two to revert war. In the future, please use a {{Howto}}, {{Copy to Wikibooks}}, or similar template, so that the content can be properly transwikied. Compliance with WP:NOT isn't so urgent to warrant biting newcomers or revert warring. — Omegatron 15:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment: HTC Wizard

This is a dispute about what including information on fixing screen issues on the HTC Wizard. 12:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Statements from editors previously involved in dispute

  • The issue on how to fix screen alignment is userguide content, and so not appropriate per WP:NOT. It's also original research, or at best unreferenced/unverified. Attempts to discuss this issue on here have been ignored by 59.144.161.143, which has made it impossible to try and reach consensus on the dispute. Wibbble 12:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Teaching a lesson Dear Urdna, though it may seem that I was vandalizing Wikipedia, I was only paying wibbble back with his own coin. He was repeatedly removing content that I was posting without discussing it first. I should have used better judgment than to fall to his level, and regret if it hurt wikipedia or you in any way. --59.144.161.143 14:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Statements from uninvolved editors

  • Keep content out Wikipedia is not userguide content. 59.144.161.143 does not seem to completely understand how Wikipedia works, there are a few messages regarding this article on their talk page. User has also vandalized Wikipedia multiple times. Urdna 03:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The content could be appropriate if worded correctly, but if Wibbble's just going to blank it and revert war, shorten it to a summary and move the rest of the content to Wikibooks. Maybe in Wikibooks:Category:Appliance_manuals? And leave a {{wikibooks}} link behind. Or to Wikia's Wireless Wiki with a link. Blanking useful content is unhelpful, and revert warring over it is unacceptable. — Omegatron 15:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Complete rewrite request

Sorry, but this article is a MESS (indeed with all-caps)! It's full of apparent linkspam, it seems to be void of any order and I'm wondering what the hell the photographed photo is, since it doesn't look remotely to the HTC wizards I've seen so far. Syrion 17:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Look at the diff [1] on the edits to see where the worst of it comes from - it's quite recent. Please feel free to remove it - I'm getting fed up dealing with this one guy's constant crusade to put as much junk as possible in the article. Also, there's different variants of HTC Wizards - the one in the picture seems to be the Cingular one. Wibbble 21:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Wibbble, the picture is of the Cingular 8125. I first thought the article was about that specific phone so i was editing things, then realized, whoops... it wasnt... so it would be nice to have more than just ONE picture... anyone have any other pictures? Maybe I can get a better version of the Cingular 8125 up... anyone else? -- Mazakar 23:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Mazakar The HTC Wizard comes in many avatars and one of them is the picture shown. I own this one and this avatar is marketed by {Cingular] in the USA.--59.144.161.143 15:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Uh, duh... I was saying we need more than just that ONE MODEL up... since there are "many avatars" of the HTC Wizard, why only show one? Mazakar 18:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can remove material from this or any article only if and when a consensus has been reached. Till such time, please do not remove any material and instead discuss it. Wibbble has been removing material that I have posted here unanymously and as much as 2 to 3 times a day. He is not able to understand that Wikipedia is not an Anarchy. --59.144.161.143 15:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, the RfC seems to support not including the content. You might want to add to it to explain why you think this content is appropriate. You've never actually countered the points I've made for why it should not be included. Wibbble 21:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Thinking on this more, I want to make sure that you understand this: if you don't participate in the debate, that doesn't mean that there's no consensus. If you don't participate, then consensus will be formed without your input. If you want to keep this content, you need to explain why all the links you've added are appropriate, and why I'm incorrect concerning the user-guide material on the screen alignment issue clashing with WP:NOT and WP:OR. If you don't do this, then the consensus will form without your input. I want to reiterate this - simply not participating in the discussion doesn't mean that you can stop it from forming a consensus. Wibbble 23:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Wibbble I would urge you to quit raising your voice. I also want you to apologize for removing content from this page without discussing it first. Once you have done the above, we will talk. Until then I assume you are not worth the time. --59.144.161.143 10:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
The bold was for emphasis. I'm not going to apologise for removing content which is inappropriate for wikipedia. If you are not willing to participate in discussion then the content will most likely be removed again! You have done everything to avoid ever explaining why my position is not correct. Wibbble 19:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree... If something is inappropriate for Wikipedia, delete it! If the person makes a mistake deleting something, the history is still there! There is no reason to be all grouchy about something so simple! Mazakar 22:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I came here from the RfC link, although it seems that there is not much of a debate to contribute to. I'd just like to point out that, from what I have read of WP guidlelines and policies, the "burden of proof" is on the editor wanting to include or retain material, not on the editor wanting to remove material. This means that 59.144.161.143 should either put forward some arguments for including the disputed material, or accept that it is not going to form part of the article. SheffieldSteel 20:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article improvement

While there's not been a great deal of discussion from the RfC, it does seem to support removing/relocating at least some of the content from this article.

I propose the following:

  1. The user-guide content, specifically the screen alignment issue content, and the 'software' and 'ROM' sections, be relocated to wikibooks per Omegatron. To facilitate this, I'll move this content to a subpage, say, Talk:HTC Wizard/userguide and someone with an interest in the wikibooks project can add the content as appropriate. (I'm not familiar with that project and have no interest in it.)
  2. The large number of external links relating to software be removed, per WP:NOT and WP:EL.
  3. The broken link (http://www.windowsmobile.no/PNphpBB2-viewforum-f-60.phtml) and the non-English-language link (http://www.qtek.fi/9100tuki.htm) be removed. Broken links obviously can be removed, and this is the English-language wikipedia - non-English links belong in the article on the appropriate language wikipedia.
  4. The lists of compatible/incompatible software is inappropriate: this device runs a standard operating system, and any such lists should be on the OS article, which in this case would be Windows Mobile. If anyone wants to preserve these lists, they can be lifted from the history and added to that article. Software which is bundled with the device (beyond the standard Windows Mobile software) could be listed, although it should be noted which variant of the device bundles that software (remember that each different network can change the software), and suitable references provided.
  5. The article should be edited for tone: there's use of jargon (such as the product codenames) and weasel-word references to things like 'most reviews' without any references at all - in fact, there's no references for anything in the article. I think that references can be found for at least the stats.
  6. Appropriately licensed (ie, not fair use) images of some of the variant handsets should be added. Given the range of variants, I don't think it's necessary to add all of them, but one or two more images would add to the article significantly.

I think that these changes will bring this article up to at least an acceptable standard. Unless there's any objections, I plan to start making these changes tomorrow. I'm not in a position to get suitable pictures - but anyone with one of these devices could take and upload an image - see WP:UPIMG for how to do this. Wibbble 18:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


My suggestion is as under,

  1. One of the biggest issues faced by any wizard owner is the screen problem. Since it is so huge, it needs a mention and resolution in the main section. I have no idea what is wikibooks, and anyways it is not any of my interests either. So it is best to keep the information here. It is like Talking about the Chernobyl Nuclear reactor without making a mention of the disaster there. The screen problem is something like that disaster.
  2. If you are suggesting we remove the external software links from this page, then there is no point in having this page. It is very important to know what are the various software that work fully or partially with this toy. It forms the information about the subject and should be placed here.
  3. Removing broken links is OK.
  4. References, yes I would urge users to google for information and cite references whereever they can find it. Citation is a very important part of any information. The easy, lazy thing to do is remove the information, and the smart, responsible thing to do is arrange it and make it complete. Removing information takes no energy and time, and is the same as breaking down a sand castle. It is building it that takes time and energy.
  5. I agree that images of variants should be added. I would urge users to please find images and upload them. Please check for copyrights before you do.
  6. Moreover, I am a strong advocate of the fact that any information, no matter how trivial, about any subject here on Wikipedia is valuable. We don't know who is searching for this information and why, so though we can refer to rules here and rules there on Wikipedia, but then we also need a lawyer to interpret them to us and so many of them are contradictory anyway. The golden rule to follow is that if the information is about the subject and if it is not wrong, then it should be allowed to remain there. Rearranging and beautifying the article is another matter altogether, but in this info world, info rules.

Thanks. --59.144.161.143 14:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

59.144.161.143 - unfortunately, collecting 'any information, no matter how trivial, about any subject' is specifically not what wikipedia is about - please see WP:NOT. That can't be a reason for keeping information in the article. Saying that we should ignore wikipedia policy makes no sense - that really would be anarchy. To the other specific points -
  1. Then mentioning this issue - if suitable references can be found to show that it is widespread - would be appropriate, but explaining how to fix it is not. Wikipedia is not a userguide. This has been established through the RfC, and I'm not happy for this content to remain. It can be moved to a more appropriate project and linked to, but it cannot remain in the article.
  2. I disagree strongly that this article has 'no point' without the large number of software links - these links have only been added recently, and do not add to the content of the article. This is an article describing a mobile phone - it's not a reference manual for Windows Mobile. The wikipedia external links policy makes this very clear. If you feel that these links are appropriate, I would suggest adding them to the Windows Mobile article, since it is software for any Windows Mobile device. HTC Wizard should be an article about the HTC Wizard - anything that's not unique to the device a reader can find out by following the link to Windows Mobile. Wibbble 18:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Starting Clean-up

I've removed the broken and non-English links, created Talk:HTC_Wizard/userguide with the userguide content to be moved to wikibooks - but I've left it in the article for now. I've also started the more general clean-up with the introduction. I searched for references for the codenames, but could only find blogs and sites that copied wikipedia's content - there was nothing that qualifies as a reliable source. I've no problems with that sort of detail being in the article, but it should be sourced. If a suitable source is found, I'm quite happy to work it into the article. I think that in that case perhaps the variants and codenames could be expanded into their own section. Wibbble 18:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Continuing the clean-up and improvement of the article, I've created a subpage with the list of software at Talk:HTC Wizard/Software links. If anyone thinks this list is appropriate for wikipedia, they can save it from there and add it to a more general article, such as Windows Mobile. As before, I'm going to leave the actual content in the article for now, however I am now removing the contents of Talk:HTC Wizard/userguide from the main article. It's been a couple of days and the content is now set aside to be moved to wikibooks or another appropriate project. Tomorrow/over the weekend I plan to try and find sources for the technical data, so that the article has at least some sources. Wibbble 18:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I now appreciate what you are doing. Moving information to it's appropriate place is constructive. Deleting it is not. Let me know if you need any help. --59.144.161.143 09:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Could someone add a template to hold all the HTC phones at the bottom of the page. For reference please visit the Nokia_6600 page. Thanks--59.144.161.143 11:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I've found a reference for the specs - the Cingular 8125 manual confirms them at the rear. I've also removed the list of software, as it's been set-aside in Talk:HTC Wizard/Software links for some time now. If anyone wants to take it to a more appropriate place, it's there waiting for it. I also removed the section on 'ROM's again, as I feel that this is still userguide-type technical content that's not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. The original is still at Talk:HTC Wizard/userguide if anyone wants to move it to a more appropriate project and then link back.

I think that the main thing that needs done now is adding references for various things - in particular the included software list (which makes a specific claim about the T-Mobile variant), and adding some more images. Any help on finding appropriate sources for this stuff is appreciated. Wibbble 18:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


I have re-added the ROM section because I think it is relevant information. Also I have re-added the software portion since it seems relevant.--59.144.161.143 12:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to re-add the 'ROM' section, it needs to be rewritten to be an encyclopaedic standard and use less jargon. Remember that wikipedia is not for user-guide or how-to type content. As for the list of software, please see my arguments above - that list isn't appropriate for this article. If you want to keep it, add it to something like Windows Mobile, as the list is not specific to this device. Please also do not revert other changes that may be made - your last edit also removed the only referencing in the article! Wibbble 19:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I have told you before and telling you the final time. Removing information is not OK. If you are so concerned about the 'way' the section is written, then improve on it, do not remove it. Read my lips "do not remove it". If English is not your strong points, then let me know what language I should say that in. --59.144.161.143 13:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has several guidelines such as WP:NOTABLE and WP:NOT which document situations where material can and should be removed from articles. According to the burden of proof guidelines, the editor wishing to add or retain material needs to justify this position. On the other hand, there are no reasonable grounds for repeatedly criticising an editor for removing material in good faith. SheffieldSteel 19:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I have moved all the factual, encyclopaedic information from the ROM section into the previous section, and deleted the unsourced and inappropriate information. SheffieldSteel 19:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nominated for deletion

I've nominated this article for deletion because as it stands there is no reason to have an article. There is no information here that establishes the notability of the subject matter. The article content is essentially a series of software and feature lists - basically what you could find in any advertisement for the product. To quote the guideline: it is "blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article."

SheffieldSteel 21:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you didn't actually nominate this properly - you tagged it as speedy, which it's clearly not. I also think that it has the potential to be a decent article, but I've given up trying to improve it due to the actions of a few other editors. Most of the cruft on this article was added to prove a point that wikipedia should be about 'everything'. I think that I've offered solutions above which could turn this into a decent article, but they were just reverted without comment or discussion. After a while, dealing with that just gets boring. Wibbble 10:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Software section

User:Brianreading deleted the software sections with the following edit comment: Removed sections with original research, In order to post this sort of information, the anonymous author should both consider if this is encyclopedic material, and should also make this verifiable.

I support this edit, and its reasoning, based on the following wikipedia guidelines, principles, and policies:

  • Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it a buyer's guide to technological devices. Software compatibility is not automatically a notable issue - unless, of course, a reliable source comments on its importance.
  • Even if the issue is notable, providing any information about compatibility (or otherwise) of any particular piece of software, without verification, constitutes original research and is not acceptable.

The article already says that the ROM supplied is some variant of Windows Mobile 5.0. That should provide enough information about what software will and will not work on this hardware. Any exceptions, if documented, should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 13:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a strong feeling that monopolizing Wikipedia is not encouraged. If you feel some item is self-researched and not a 'knowlede' item, then you may ask for references, rather than assume the item to be original research. Under this objection, I have re-instated the section. Do not delete it again.--122.160.82.88 06:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your argument makes no sense. There are two of us who agree that this information is also unencyclopedic material and thus has no place in the article regardless of references, not to mention it being original research. Do you even have ANY sources for the info you wish to post? There are so many reasons it should be removed, including the fact that you're the only one advocating its inclusion. I'd advise you to take your own advice and please don't monopolize this article. Even if it was encyclopedic content, you have to ask yourself which side it is appropriate to err on. Factual accuracy or More (possibly incorrect) information? My argument is that factual accuracy is the more appropriate. At least give us some slack before you attempt to dictate, again we want sources and reasoning for it being encyclopedic! Brianreading 08:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested for Semi-Protection

I've requested this article be put under semi-protection by administrators to block anonymous vandalization especially after a consensus and valid reasoning as to why certain pieces of information are inappropriate on Wikipedia. Brianreading 10:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The article has been placed under full-protection to allow the anonymous author to discuss his/her reasoning with the rest of the community. That discussion should be done in the section above. Brianreading 12:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)