Talk:Microsoft Windows

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article Microsoft Windows was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
April 3, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
August 4, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted
May 19, 2008 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Delisted good article

Who is Chase Bishop?

I am unable to find any original useful citations for Chase Bishop. The article currently reads: "The history of Windows dates back to September 1981, when Chase Bishop, a computer scientist, designed the first model of an electronic device and project Interface Manager was started." A cursory web search yields results that either contains this exact same sentence or slightly modified version. There are no patents for a Chase Bishop. There are no results on Google Scholar. A search on Google Books returns no useful results. I have therefore added a "Citation Required" tag to the mention. wneo (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I've removed it. I looked at the history, it was added as vandalism and nobody caught it for seven years. Warren.talk , 03:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Wow. Another one? Remember the one I caught a while back in the TPM article? That was a decade old.
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Yep, I remember. Well, there's a nice project for us for 2018, see if we can find some more nonsense to excise. Warren.talk , 02:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Rename article "Windows"

Consensus is to keep the name the same. Popcornduff (talk) 09:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC))
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I respect that the article is currently titled "Microsoft Windows" for reasons of disambiguation (WP:NATURALDIS). However, I believe this is unnecessary.

  • "Windows" is overwhelmingly the WP:COMMONNAME, not "Microsoft Windows". This is the case even on the official Windows site.
  • The plural "s" provides sufficient disambiguation from window. See also friend and Friends. Further disambiguation between "window" and other uses of "windows" is sufficiently covered with the hatnote we have now.
  • Beyond actual physical windows, there is no other meaning of "Windows" that is even remotely as often used. This isn't like "English", which might refer to English language or English people, for example. The Windows OS is certainly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. (We seem to know this already - the article already redirects from Windows, after all.) To quote WP:NATURALDIS: "If the article is about the primary topic to which the ambiguous name refers, then that name can be its title without modification, provided it follows all other applicable policies." Popcornduff (talk) 04:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi.
Wikipedia is already suffering from a shortage of editor manpower for many important and sensitive improvements. And here you are, starting a discussion on what is a "color of the bike shed" matter. Even if we give you what you want, it doesn't stop someone else from starting a 'Rename article "Microsoft Windows"' discussion, and mention all the other articles that we renamed to prefix "Microsoft" to their title, e.g. Microsoft Paint, Microsoft Minesweeper and Microsoft Solitaire.
Windows already redirects to Microsoft Windows and I am already using it exclusively.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
There are many ways I could respond to this. But it sounds like you're saying you won't mind if I rename the page, as it doesn't matter? Popcornduff (talk) 07:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. I have no preference between "Windows" and "Microsoft Windows" as neither is significantly better.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Both titles are okay with me. Hence, keep status quo per MOS:STABILITY and spare Wikipedia of all diffs involving the move. —Codename Lisa (talk) 11:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
    • What about all the arguments I made in favour of the move? Do you have any response to them? Popcornduff (talk) 11:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
      • They are necessary but not enough. With those arguments, if I had to rate the move on a scale of -100 to 100, I won't rate it within -100 to 0. But still they do not amount to a substantial reason for the change, as required by MOS:STABILITY. i.e., even with those arguments, I cannot rate your proposal 100 or 80. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
        • That doesn't respond to my points at all. Can you explain the problems with the arguments? Popcornduff (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • No thank you. Microsoft Windows is the name of the product, and is unambiguous. It passes WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Windows already redirects here, anyways (though that was a subject of conversation many years ago), so there's no real upside to changing it. Please find something more useful to contribute to the encyclopedia. Warren.talk , 11:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
I think you're arguing against WP:COMMONNAME there. Popcornduff (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Examining WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, I think it falls down on a few points:
  • "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles." - Other articles are titled Windows 10, Windows 95, not "Microsoft Windows 95", etc.
  • "Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects." Just writing "Windows" is sufficient to distinguish it from "window".
  • "Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for " - No one calls it "Microsoft Windows", hence WP:COMMONNAME argument. Popcornduff (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
"No one calls it Microsoft Windows"[citation needed] (good luck with that -- it's a big world) Also, pointing to individual version articles as an example is poor -- the names of those operating system releases are indeed "Windows 10", not "Microsoft Windows 10". The more apt comparison is Microsoft Office, which is an article about the whole series. Warren.talk , 00:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Amazon does. Warren.talk , 00:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment - The issue that brought this up was due to the use of always using Microsoft Windows as a wikilink in video game articles instead of Windows. Even if the article doesn't get moved due to WP:NATURALDIS, I believe the WP:COMMONNAME is simply Windows, and should be preferred in wikilinks over the article name, as it redirects here anyway. Are there any policies that state otherwise? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
There are nearly 20,000 articles that link to Microsoft Windows vs. 2900 that link to Windows -- that's, what, an 8:1 ratio? Sure seems like we have a broad consensus for things being as they are, don't you think? This article has since November 2001 with its current name without any prior attempt to rename it. As for your question, WP:NOTBROKEN applies: piping to avoid a redirect is "a time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental", so don't do that. If you want to say "Windows" or "Microsoft Windows" in an article, great. Might make sense in a space-limited Infobox to use the shorter name. Otherwise, don't worry about it. Warren.talk , 00:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Of course Wikipedia contains more links to Microsoft Windows than Windows - because that's what the article is called right now. Not evidence that it's the correct name IMO. Popcornduff (talk) 04:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I get that, I'm not asking to move the article's title, just how we link to it. Linking to Windows wouldn't be a piped link, it would just be a redirect using the actual common name that takes up less space. And I do agree that maybe it should be changed in infoboxes, but that's more of a question for WP:VG than here. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Windows means a number of things. Microsoft Windows means one thing. A change like this simple does not aid Wikipedia's readers, and this whole discussion feels more like a solution to a problem that no one was having. Like the equivalent of Wiki-lawyering for article naming or something. Sergecross73 msg me 04:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per OP. Microsoft itself only uses the "Windows" label, including internally. Contrast this with the common automaker practice of, e.g., "Toyota Prius" at dealerships or in ads.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support if the redirect has already been in place, I do not understand any argument against it. KISS SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 12:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Enhancing my support with this rejoinder to what I see in the discussion:
  • "There are other things named 'Windows' therefore we need the manufacturer name for clarity/disambiguation." No. Windows redirects here. Disambiguity has been settled long ago.
  • "The product name is Microsoft Windows" No. Windows is a line of multiple products with multiple editions. The products and editions are Windows for Workgroups, Windows 95, Windows 2000, Windows NT 4 Server, Windows Vista, Windows 10, Windows Phone, Windows for Pen Computing etc. The product has gone through many naming conventions with versions, titles, separated lines, but always just Windows. The manufacturer is Microsoft. The names of the product do not include Microsoft the manufacturer, as decided by Microsoft, the decision for which we respect on every other technology product on Wikipedia. This is, in itself, a defacto naming convention usually only superceded by ambiguity or the decision of a larger product (WP:AUTOS decided to use Make + Model) Examples given:
  • iOS not Apple iOS
  • NetWare not Novell NetWare
  • macOS not Apple MacOS
  • Linux not GNU Linux
  • Ubuntu not Canonical Ubuntu, nor Ubuntu Linux
  • Wii not Nintendo Wii
  • Android not Google Android
  • ChromeOS not Google ChromeOS
  • Grand Theft Auto not Rockstar Games Grand Theft Auto
  • Xbox, not Microsoft Xbox
The only argument I read that isn't based on alternative facts is MOS:STABILITY. The presenter of which actually prefers just Windows. If stability was more important than MOS:COMMONNAME we wouldn't ever be renaming anything. Stability is simply a paragraph having more to do with the internal text and layout of an article, not stability of titles. Stability in this case is not really an argument.
There is, as of yet, no argument based on Wikipedia guidelines against this proposed move. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not an improvement. The name is "Microsoft Windows". "Windows" is the extremely common shortened version, but it is more ambiguous. And the "argument" that Microsoft calls it "Windows" internally is no argument -- of course they do. Just as Priscilla doesn't ask the butler at Graceland if "Elvis Presley" is coming down to breakfast today. Eric talk 16:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
On all the MS marketing materials, meant for customers, it’s called Windows. The shortened version is overwhelmingly more common than the “full” version across all media. Popcornduff (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
It's been a couple of weeks. Is any sort of consensus in sight? Popcornduff (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's consistent with the other Microsoft x articles, and even in winver it says Microsoft Windows.— Zzyzx Wolfe (TALKCONT) 02:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment: should we rename the article Windows?

Should we rename the article Windows? See the previous discussion above. Popcornduff (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Windows already redirects here. An argument based on ambiguity was settled years ago. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Oppose: This overall hinders its recognizability for readers. "Windows" could mean all sorts of things, commonly window or window panes . "Microsoft Windows" represents one concrete thing. There's also no current issue regarding this - its attempting to solve a problem that no one is having. Sergecross73 msg me 18:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Windows already redirects here. An argument based on ambiguity was settled years ago. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Settled? Apparently not, because here we are, talking about it again. Yes, I'm aware of the redirect. Just because a redirect exists doesn't make it the right title for the article, it just means it's an option people use sometimes. Perhaps that needs to be discussed too (but in a separate discussion as to not bog down this one with too many points of discussion.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's consistent with the other Microsoft x articles, and even in winver it says Microsoft Windows.— Zzyzx Wolfe (TALKCONT) 02:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
No, that's not how other articles are named. See my article name survey in the previous discussion. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Oppose - As I said in my close (which was reverted) this is never going to happen, A big trout to Popcornduff for wasting everyones fucking time. –Davey2010Talk 03:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Wow. That's an upsetting thing to say. Popcornduff (talk) 03:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Davey2010 - don't be rude. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Yes Once again, saying other stuff exists is a totally invalid response because Windows already redirects here. There is no argument against this move that make sense and stands up to any scrutiny. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 04:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Both titles are okay. "Microsoft Windows" is extra ambiguity-proof. Per MOS:STABILITY, keep it. Also, a trout to the nom for this color of the bike shed proposal. —Codename Lisa (talk) 05:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. In a general context, "windows" are a feature of buildings. In a computing context, "windows" are rectangular areas of the screen, as seen in Unix and other operating systems. Maproom (talk) 09:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Windows Sets

We need to mention new tabbed feature of Insider Preview. Latest build 17643 has possibility of tabbing desktop win32 apps with webpages. It's possible to tab unity, blender, calculator and edge together in one set. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lei HeJun (talkcontribs) 10:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

April Fools You Me And Windos 9 Microsoft-windows-9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.18.66.92 (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Microsoft_Windows&oldid=837855189"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Microsoft_Windows
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Talk:Microsoft Windows"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA