Do we need a "Status" field?
Yes. There really needs to be some indication about the state of development for a device. You can not gather the level of support for a device from a release number.
If we kept it, we'd be tempted to choose between "supported", "not supported", "WIP", "partial support", etc. which no one would understand
I disagree. These are perfectly understandable terms. Even a beginner can dinstinguish between "yay, it works", "boo, it doesn't work", "whee, they are working on it". I agree though that "partial support" isn't clear. Maybe that should be "supported (with limitations)", pointing to the details page, or even a limitations field to put next to it.
Can we use a score (0-100): average
Installable from: WebGUI=100, TFPT=50, Serial=10
Wifi: Works=100, Limited=50, Not working=0
Ports (USB etc): Works=100, Limited=50, Not working=0
Compability: Current/BB=100, AA=75, Older=50, Trunk=50, Other/Custom=25
Stability: Stable=100, Questionable=50, Unstable=10
Availability: For sale new=100, common used=50, rare/obsolete=10
Bricked: Never/Rarely=100, Some users=50, Multiple reports=10
Memory: 32MB+=100, 16MB=50, 8Mb=0
This would not need to be automatic, but more a guideline for calculating a score. It would be slightly subjectively calculated by the page maintainer, but the sub-scores could be presented in the hardware article (not the ToH-list). Also, the date when the score was last updated could be included.
Could it be meaningful to have such (or some kind of) semi-objective score based on components? Perhaps it would be more clear than todays status?