Talk:Microsoft Windows

Metafamily

is not an English word and should not be used in the lead sentence of this article to describe the topic. See wiktionary:metafamily, or really, any dictionary. The word just isn't there. Imagine a 10-year-old, or a non-English speaker, or anyone with little familiarity with computing topics trying to parse the first sentence of this article. The word "metafamily" is undefined, which that will confuse someone who's just trying to get their head wrapped around the topic. (No, it is not the plural of family -- that word is "families".)

Let's put this another way: If I were to slap a "citation needed" on the term -- and that's exactly what I'm doing next if anyone dares to put that word back in this article -- nobody would be able to resolve it with a reference to a source using that term. That's a fact. I've looked already.

Let's put this another way: Family is in fact the grammatically suitable word, since the term "family" is defined in Wiktionary as "Any group or aggregation of things classed together as kindred or related from possessing in common characteristics which distinguish them from other things of the same order", and at dictionary.com as "a group of products or product models made by the same manufacturer or producer". Both of these are accurate descriptions of what Microsoft Windows is. Saying something like "several families" is better, but it's still not appropriate because that would imply that the families are not related to eachother. Warren -talk- 02:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello

It is a known school-taught fact that English language (or any language) is capable of breeding new words using predefined rules, and educated people can understand them. These words don't appear in dictionaries for a very long time. Example: Subfolder, subnoticedboard, coaxiality, superdialect, tag-minded, ultra-subpar. And word that you used and doesn't appear in any dictionary: "non-English".

In this case, both "meta-" and "family" are defined in the dictionary.

As for the fallacies in your comment:

• A non-English speaker neither understands "family" nor "metafamily"; for him or her, it is meaningless gibberish.
• You underestimate 10-year-olds; but it is true that they have a long way to grasp all intricacies of the English language. They don't understand Shakespear or Milton's works either. They encounter this word, ask their mom, dad, legal guardian or teacher, and learn it. It is part of the learning process and must not be avoided.
• We Wikipedians are expected to read an article and summarize it in the lead, and summarize the plotlines of books, film or plays into "Plot" sections. In such cases we are not strictly obliged to provide a direct citation, because the citation is implied. (But of course, some people do so for very controversial parts.) If you slap a {{Citation needed}}, I will revert on the grounds that {{Citation needed lead}} is what must be used in the lead section. And if insert the latter, well, I will let stay, but you would be subject to ridicule because the body does demonstrate that Windows consists of several families. In fact, the terms "families" and "geneology" are used.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey, guys. Just thought I drop by and say hi. Otherwise I have no interest in this discussion. So, if you want to call a WP:3O, go ahead. Don't mind me. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 12:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I have offered a compromise. —Codename Lisa (talk) 12:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, you see what I did? My mere presence is like light. It brings about calm and knowledge with it, to a dark and gloomy world full of fear and hostility arising from it.

LOL. Good thing neither of you two are admins, or else, one day, I'd have realized that my username is changed to FleetArrogance or ArroganceCommand. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 18:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The change is an improvement, but it is rather odd that you felt it worth your time to protect the term "metafamily" and refuse to settle with "family" here, while also having spent the last five-plus years watching {{Microsoft Windows family}} without ever proposing to change the name or title of that template. Haven't seen you proposing a similar change at Macintosh or Unix either.

Also, FleetCommand? I'm surprised to hear you say you don't care about this, given that you're the one who added "metafamily" in the first place in response to Codename Lisa wanting to call it a "superfamily". Warren -talk- 05:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Warren

That template name is just the tip of the iceberg of all the templates names that I wish were different but I don't touch. The principle of Template Editors is: If a template's problem is not causing World War III, don't touch it. For example, {{Media player (application software)}} is just another instance.

Also, I need a second opinion: Everyday, I go to a dozen of discussions that I don't care about and announce not caring about them. I was thinking maybe, I should take someone with me today. What do you think about taking Mr. Bringer of Light? I mean after all, his mere presence brings about calm and knowledge to a dark and gloomy world full of fear and hostility arising from it."

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 05:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Microsoft Windows. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080208174626/http://news.soft32.com/windows-evolution_1629.html to http://news.soft32.com/windows-evolution_1629.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120211132458/http://www.islandnet.com/~kpolsson/compsoft/soft1991.htm to http://www.islandnet.com/~kpolsson/compsoft/soft1991.htm
• Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20090710152541/http://review.zdnet.com/4520-6033_16-4206552.html to http://review.zdnet.com/4520-6033_16-4206552.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.winsupersite.com/article/showcase/a-look-at-freestyle-and-mira.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130122030754/http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-09/tech/31040510_1_steven-sinofsky-pcs-microsoft-first to http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-09/tech/31040510_1_steven-sinofsky-pcs-microsoft-first
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100103052620/http://www.computer-security-news.com/0969/5-steps-to-securing-your-windows-xp-home-computer to http://www.computer-security-news.com/0969/5-steps-to-securing-your-windows-xp-home-computer

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

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"

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" (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 ^(TALK_CONT) 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)

• Oppose: I feel Windows is just too generic of a term. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 16:10, 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)

• Oppose It's consistent with the other Microsoft x articles, and even in winver it says Microsoft Windows.— Zzyzx Wolfe ^(TALK_CONT) 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. –Davey2010^Talk 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)