Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Windows 10 for phones and small tablets

Windows 10 for phones and small tablets

The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.

Editors involved in this dispute

1. EndlessCoffee54 (talk · contribs) – filing party
2. ViperSnake151 (talk · contribs)
3. User931 (talk · contribs)
4. Namlong618 (talk · contribs)
5. Some Gadget Geek (talk · contribs)
6. Codename Lisa (talk · contribs)
7. Chabgo (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

1. Windows 10 for phones and small tablets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2. Windows Phone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

• Talk:Windows 10 for phones and small tablets#Changes to articles on Windows 10 for mobile to separate it from Windows Phone
• Talk:Windows 10, various sections

Issues to be mediated

What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted.

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

There has been a heated discussion over whether Windows 10 for phones and small tablets is an iteration of Windows Phone and falls under the Windows Phone product family, or whether it is an independent platform. I have argued that Windows 10 for phones and small tablets is independent of Windows Phone, and proposed a set of changes meant to clarify this distinction (which can be seen on the talk page). The discussion so far on the talk page has been slightly confusing, although there has been a rough consensus of several editors in favor of my proposed changes. However, ViperSnake151 (who is in favor of referring to Windows 10 for phones and small tablets as a version of Windows Phone) has argued that not enough people have been involved in the discussion. I would like to request mediation so we can achieve a clear consensus on whether or not to go ahead with these proposed edits. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 07:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• User931 has suggested a merge that stood outside of the discussion, we have universally opposed the merge (even if for example my and EndlessCoffee's personal opinions are pro-the merger, we have universally opposed it), the merge concerned the pages Windows 10 and Windows 10 for phones and small tablets. --Namlong618 (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC) (formerly 86.81.201.94)
• Other affected pages include Template:Microsoft Windows family I took it to the talk page there (because at the time I was unaware of the discussion on the main article concerned and wrote quite a wordy reaction), as well as on the Windows 10 for phones and small tablets version history template, the Template:Windows Phone and and Windows Phone 8.1 (which some want to consider the last Windows Phone-branded mobile operating system by Microsoft). Further explanation of the templates, one side of the discussion wants to remove Windows 10 for phones and small tablet-P.C.'s from the Windows Phone template, and place it in the M.W.f. template as "Windows 10 (Mobile)" as opposed to placing the mobile version under "Windows Phone". --Namlong618 (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC) (formerly 86.81.201.94)
• Windows 10 for phones and small tablets is not a new system and is actually built upon the old template from Windows Phone rather than anything else and shares the same codebase, therefore Windows Phone, upon release of Windows 10 for phones and small tablets should be renamed as such and additionally should be merged now as a future version. This would be similar to what would happen with the Windows 10 page and Windows itself I imagine, upon release. Chabgo (talk) 10:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• Additional issue 4
• Additional issue 5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namlong618 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Parties' agreement to mediation

If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion.

1. Agree. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 07:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
2. I guess... ViperSnake151  Talk  14:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
3. Agree User:User931 15:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
4. Yeah, we need to get this sorted out. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
5. Agreed, we need this. --Namlong618 (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC) (formerly 86.81.201.94)
6. I comply. Codename Lisa (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
7. Undoubtedly agree. This should be sorted. Chabgo (talk) 10:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here.

• Chairperson's note: I've added the additional parties involved in the various discussions, since their participation and cooperation will be needed for a successful result. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson)
• Accept. This case is accepted for mediation. I will now seek a member to actually mediate the case. Members have two weeks to respond. If no member accepts the case within that time, the case will be retroactively rejected for lack of a mediator. Please refrain from discussing the case here during that time, but feel free to continue the discussion on the article talk pages. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson)

Retroactive reject. No member of the committee has volunteered to take the case within the two week period allowed for that, so the case is retroactively rejected. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)