This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 1000 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
FleetCommand, you say that everything in "The name changes in this area continue through 2015, with new names such as "Universal apps" and "Windows apps" once used in contrast with "Windows desktop applications", which were also to take advantage of Windows Runtime." is covered by the sources, but I've failed to find it even after double-checking. Where does it say that the term "Windows apps" has been used only once? Where does it say that "Windows desktop applications also take advantage of Windows Runtime"? Where that this is part of several ongoing changes throughout 2015? Diego ( talk) 09:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Where does it say that the term "Windows apps" has been used only once?' When did I say this?
Where does it say that "Windows desktop applications also take advantage of Windows Runtime"?' Top diagram of Ars Technica, which is a reproduction of Channel 9 source. Also, see Windows 8 article for details on browsers using Win32 API.
Where that this is part of several ongoing changes throughout 2015?' I didn't say ongoing. But both your sources are dated March 2015. Unless you are suggesting that sources are wildly outdated, that means Microsoft changed the name in 2015 too. Fleet Command ( talk) 16:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Where does it say that the term "Windows apps" has been used only once?' When did I say this?In this edit you re-added the text "new names such as "Universal apps" and "Windows apps" once used in contrast with "Windows desktop applications"". There's nothing in the source stating that this has not happened elsewhere, so you shouldn't write that it happened once.
Top diagram of Ars Technica, which is a reproduction of Channel 9 source.' Ok, it appears somewhere in the article, as a minor point in a slide. This has a problem of undue weight then - why is it important to mention that desktop apps have access to the runtime too, with the emotionally loaded term "take advantage of" no less, if the source doesn't even make mention of it in prose? The defining point of "Windows apps" is that they don't use the full Win32 API (and not the other way around), and are therefore portable to any device using the app platform. Being able to access the Runtime does nothing for desktop apps in terms of portability, so it isn't relevant to the topic discussed in the articles.
But both your sources are dated March 2015. Unless you are suggesting that sources are wildly outdated, that means Microsoft changed the name in 2015 too.This is exactly the kind of sloppy assumption that WP:SYNTH policy intends to avoid. Several sources mention how "Windows apps" was adopted in 2015, but NOT the term "universal apps", which has much earlier appearances. Therefore you cannot say that there have been changes in 2015, in plural, if there has been only one.
Codename Lisa, do you have a justification for this revert against WP:EDITWAR and WP:BURDEN policies, other than willing to continue the edit war? I have explained how the current content fails verification, and you have removed new supported content as well. I've tagged the content dispute and will follow dispute resolution procedures, I hope you will do the same instead of blind reverting with no discussion. Please remember that the WP:BURDEN policy to verify disputed content binds as well. Diego ( talk) 14:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Engaging in edit warring is a curious way to prevent edit warring." Then it must be a good thing that I didn't do it! Not every revert is an edit war, sir, just as not every tree is a jungle. Edit warring is a behavior characterized by unwillingness to work as a team. Your revert was made in such a spirit, hence it is disruptive. Mine undid an act of disruption. When you talk and don't wait for the reply, then you are not having a discussion. Also, your act of citing WP:EDITCONSENSUS and WP:POINT is simply too dishonest to be left uncommented; WP:BOOMERANG.
Yet you contradicted yourself a two minutes laterIf you actually cared to read what I've actually done, you'll see that this very edit *does not* contradict anything, because it does not remove the "take advantage" assertion. When there's back and forth edits with disputed content, I only remove content that is completely unverifiable. When some content can be reasonably inferred to be supported by the references given, as is the case with the "also to take advantage of Windows Runtime" (which I did *not* remove after FC explained how it was supported), I do leave it in place after the first revert until the content is discussed at talk page (maybe with a tag to show readers how the content is problematic). But this just is not what happened here with the actually unverifiable assertions that I removed (and which you agree are unverifiable and/or should be changed!).
Your revert was made in such a spirit, hence it is disruptive. Mine undid an act of disruption.This is your excuse for breaking the core Verifiability policy? In the future, if you think you must right a great wrong, please do so without introducing assertions that fail to meet the burden of proof - you're not doing Wikipedia a favor by re-introducing problematic content for the only purpose of "discouraging me from further edit warring", i.e. not to improve the page but instead " making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their point." Please don't do that again.
"once used" in English can mean "when used"; simply replace "once" with "when"
If the expression "take advantage of" is "emotionally loaded", simply replace it with "uses".
your objection the phrase "through 2015" may only be treated with the removal the unverifiable time clauseIf you think those are improvements, by all the gods in the northern pantheon, why did not make those yourself? Instead you reverted to a version that you know does not correspond to what the sources say? Why did you have to revert my work in the most destructive way possible? You say I am the one unwilling to cooperate?
why is it important to mention that desktop apps have access to the runtime too?" It is not important at all. You were just saying the complete opposite, which was false. Fleet Command ( talk) 12:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Applications created with the Windows Runtime were later called "Universal apps".
Extended content
|
---|
This sentence is also wrong:
You and CL are reading it wrong: The classification is "app" vs. " desktop application". |
Apps built on the Windows universal app platform are called Windows apps in contrast with Windows desktop applications that run on PCs only. What is there to misread? Both Ars Technica and i-programmer make the connection with "desktop" and "Win-32 API" as the primary library for desktop applications and Windows Runtime the primary platform for apps; even if technically each style of app can access a subset of the other library, that's not their primary target. Diego ( talk) 08:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
A new name change happened on March 26, 2015, with the term "Windows apps" used to describe apps based on the Windows Runtime which are portable to all devices supporting the platform, in contrast with "Windows desktop applications".
Applications created with the Windows Runtime were later called "Universal apps". In March 2015 Microsoft rebranded them as "Windows apps", used to describe apps based on the Windows Runtime which are portable to all devices supporting Microsoft's universal runtime platform, in contrast with "Windows desktop applications" used for Win32 applications.
Here is a summary of the problems with each diff:
1 | 652804539—653717560 | Diego Moya | Introduced the disputed region. Problems: It introduces "Windows apps" term, not as a new name for "Metro-style apps", but as a something whose definition that may or may not overlap with Metro-style apps. |
2 | 653717560–next | Codename Lisa | Three improvements: (a) "Universal app" terms is added as a synonym of "Metro-style app". (b) "Windows app" is made a synonym of Metro-style app. (c) Clarified that Windows Runtime cannot be taken as a distinguishing measure. Problems: (d) It used the word "once" instead of "when". (e) It used "take advantage of", which I don't think is a problem. (f) It used "continue through", which should be replaced with a time clause that indicated between 2012 to 2015. |
3 | 653924393-next | Diego Moya | Introduced three problems: (a) It redefined "Windows app" as the same thing in #1; the redefinition is the problem because "Metro-style app" is already well-defined. (b) It made "Universal app" a synonym of the same thing. (c) It alleged that traditional apps cannot access Windows Runtime. It claimed that (d) improvements in #2 are not verifiable by the sources given. |
4 | 654168654-next | Fleet Command | Reviewed #3. Discovered that 3a through 3c are not verifiable and the 3d claim is incorrect. Hence, it is a blanket revert. Sent this message to Diego: Special:Diff/654193269/654359967 |
5 | 654358652-654468949 | Diego Moya | Edit summary reads: Double checked the sources, they definitely don't say "name changes in this area continue through 2015" nor "once used" - that's [[WP:SYNTH]. "Universal apps" in particular goes as far as 2012. But in reality, this edit is a blanket revert to #3 state that adds "once{{ fv}}" and "which were also to take advantage of Windows Runtime.{{ fv}}". So, basically it has the sum of all the problems of #2 and #3 and some misplaced irrelevant {{ fv}} tags too. |
One minor edit and one bot edit ignored | |||
6 | 654471039-next | Fleet Command | Reverted to #2. |
7 | 654507478-next | 173.53.57.63 | Reverted to #6 |
8 | 654599191-next | Fleet Command | Reverted to #2 |
9 | 654651230-next | 173.53.57.63 | Reverted to #6 |
10 | 654695052-next | Codename Lisa | Reverted to #2 |
One edit by Dewritech here | |||
11 | 654810878-655185257 | Diego Moya | A brand-new edit, but in the same line as #3. (a) It drops "Universal app". (b) Redefines "Windows apps" term, not as a new name for "Metro-style apps", but as a something whose definition that may or may not overlap with Metro-style apps. (Going back to square one.) (c) Calls "Windows app" a rebranding, causing a cascading contradiction. In effect, "Metro-style app", "Windows 8 app" and "Windows Store app" are redefined by removing Metro compliance requirement. (d) It puts an {{ undue-inline}} in front of "which were also to take advantage of Windows Runtime", apparently accepting it is verifiable; see reply on 14:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC) (e) A new ambiguous "supporting the platform" is added. The resulting text is a jungle of contradictions. |
12 | 655187736-next | Codename Lisa | Reverted changes in #11 |
13 | 655188527-655191457 | Diego Moya | Tagged the problem area with {{ fv}} and {{ undue-inline}}. However, one of the {{ fv}} tag is placed in front of clause that we decided didn't fail verification. Another is placed in front of ' and "Windows apps"', which Diego himself has written. |
Fleet Command ( talk) 12:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
@ User:Codename Lisa I know this has been talked about many times before, and I think it is common enough to say that we move this article to Microsoft Design Language. Metro is no more, and news, official and third-party sources, haven't referred to the UI as Metro for a long time. In addition this official powerpoint from microsoft mentions Microsoft Design Language on slide 21. WikIan -( talk) 23:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not Moved ( non-admin closure) ExtorcDev ( talk) 09:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Metro (design language) → Microsoft Design Language – I think it's been called Microsoft Design Language since 2012, but for some reason nobody has taken the time to move this article? Wow, and somehow Microsoft Design Language doesn't even redirect here... Also, this Talk page should probably be archived by a bot, because it's too long. 2001:1C06:19CA:D600:48FD:7584:CFA8:F952 ( talk) 15:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. >>> Extorc. talk 17:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 18:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 1000 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
FleetCommand, you say that everything in "The name changes in this area continue through 2015, with new names such as "Universal apps" and "Windows apps" once used in contrast with "Windows desktop applications", which were also to take advantage of Windows Runtime." is covered by the sources, but I've failed to find it even after double-checking. Where does it say that the term "Windows apps" has been used only once? Where does it say that "Windows desktop applications also take advantage of Windows Runtime"? Where that this is part of several ongoing changes throughout 2015? Diego ( talk) 09:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Where does it say that the term "Windows apps" has been used only once?' When did I say this?
Where does it say that "Windows desktop applications also take advantage of Windows Runtime"?' Top diagram of Ars Technica, which is a reproduction of Channel 9 source. Also, see Windows 8 article for details on browsers using Win32 API.
Where that this is part of several ongoing changes throughout 2015?' I didn't say ongoing. But both your sources are dated March 2015. Unless you are suggesting that sources are wildly outdated, that means Microsoft changed the name in 2015 too. Fleet Command ( talk) 16:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Where does it say that the term "Windows apps" has been used only once?' When did I say this?In this edit you re-added the text "new names such as "Universal apps" and "Windows apps" once used in contrast with "Windows desktop applications"". There's nothing in the source stating that this has not happened elsewhere, so you shouldn't write that it happened once.
Top diagram of Ars Technica, which is a reproduction of Channel 9 source.' Ok, it appears somewhere in the article, as a minor point in a slide. This has a problem of undue weight then - why is it important to mention that desktop apps have access to the runtime too, with the emotionally loaded term "take advantage of" no less, if the source doesn't even make mention of it in prose? The defining point of "Windows apps" is that they don't use the full Win32 API (and not the other way around), and are therefore portable to any device using the app platform. Being able to access the Runtime does nothing for desktop apps in terms of portability, so it isn't relevant to the topic discussed in the articles.
But both your sources are dated March 2015. Unless you are suggesting that sources are wildly outdated, that means Microsoft changed the name in 2015 too.This is exactly the kind of sloppy assumption that WP:SYNTH policy intends to avoid. Several sources mention how "Windows apps" was adopted in 2015, but NOT the term "universal apps", which has much earlier appearances. Therefore you cannot say that there have been changes in 2015, in plural, if there has been only one.
Codename Lisa, do you have a justification for this revert against WP:EDITWAR and WP:BURDEN policies, other than willing to continue the edit war? I have explained how the current content fails verification, and you have removed new supported content as well. I've tagged the content dispute and will follow dispute resolution procedures, I hope you will do the same instead of blind reverting with no discussion. Please remember that the WP:BURDEN policy to verify disputed content binds as well. Diego ( talk) 14:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Engaging in edit warring is a curious way to prevent edit warring." Then it must be a good thing that I didn't do it! Not every revert is an edit war, sir, just as not every tree is a jungle. Edit warring is a behavior characterized by unwillingness to work as a team. Your revert was made in such a spirit, hence it is disruptive. Mine undid an act of disruption. When you talk and don't wait for the reply, then you are not having a discussion. Also, your act of citing WP:EDITCONSENSUS and WP:POINT is simply too dishonest to be left uncommented; WP:BOOMERANG.
Yet you contradicted yourself a two minutes laterIf you actually cared to read what I've actually done, you'll see that this very edit *does not* contradict anything, because it does not remove the "take advantage" assertion. When there's back and forth edits with disputed content, I only remove content that is completely unverifiable. When some content can be reasonably inferred to be supported by the references given, as is the case with the "also to take advantage of Windows Runtime" (which I did *not* remove after FC explained how it was supported), I do leave it in place after the first revert until the content is discussed at talk page (maybe with a tag to show readers how the content is problematic). But this just is not what happened here with the actually unverifiable assertions that I removed (and which you agree are unverifiable and/or should be changed!).
Your revert was made in such a spirit, hence it is disruptive. Mine undid an act of disruption.This is your excuse for breaking the core Verifiability policy? In the future, if you think you must right a great wrong, please do so without introducing assertions that fail to meet the burden of proof - you're not doing Wikipedia a favor by re-introducing problematic content for the only purpose of "discouraging me from further edit warring", i.e. not to improve the page but instead " making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their point." Please don't do that again.
"once used" in English can mean "when used"; simply replace "once" with "when"
If the expression "take advantage of" is "emotionally loaded", simply replace it with "uses".
your objection the phrase "through 2015" may only be treated with the removal the unverifiable time clauseIf you think those are improvements, by all the gods in the northern pantheon, why did not make those yourself? Instead you reverted to a version that you know does not correspond to what the sources say? Why did you have to revert my work in the most destructive way possible? You say I am the one unwilling to cooperate?
why is it important to mention that desktop apps have access to the runtime too?" It is not important at all. You were just saying the complete opposite, which was false. Fleet Command ( talk) 12:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Applications created with the Windows Runtime were later called "Universal apps".
Extended content
|
---|
This sentence is also wrong:
You and CL are reading it wrong: The classification is "app" vs. " desktop application". |
Apps built on the Windows universal app platform are called Windows apps in contrast with Windows desktop applications that run on PCs only. What is there to misread? Both Ars Technica and i-programmer make the connection with "desktop" and "Win-32 API" as the primary library for desktop applications and Windows Runtime the primary platform for apps; even if technically each style of app can access a subset of the other library, that's not their primary target. Diego ( talk) 08:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
A new name change happened on March 26, 2015, with the term "Windows apps" used to describe apps based on the Windows Runtime which are portable to all devices supporting the platform, in contrast with "Windows desktop applications".
Applications created with the Windows Runtime were later called "Universal apps". In March 2015 Microsoft rebranded them as "Windows apps", used to describe apps based on the Windows Runtime which are portable to all devices supporting Microsoft's universal runtime platform, in contrast with "Windows desktop applications" used for Win32 applications.
Here is a summary of the problems with each diff:
1 | 652804539—653717560 | Diego Moya | Introduced the disputed region. Problems: It introduces "Windows apps" term, not as a new name for "Metro-style apps", but as a something whose definition that may or may not overlap with Metro-style apps. |
2 | 653717560–next | Codename Lisa | Three improvements: (a) "Universal app" terms is added as a synonym of "Metro-style app". (b) "Windows app" is made a synonym of Metro-style app. (c) Clarified that Windows Runtime cannot be taken as a distinguishing measure. Problems: (d) It used the word "once" instead of "when". (e) It used "take advantage of", which I don't think is a problem. (f) It used "continue through", which should be replaced with a time clause that indicated between 2012 to 2015. |
3 | 653924393-next | Diego Moya | Introduced three problems: (a) It redefined "Windows app" as the same thing in #1; the redefinition is the problem because "Metro-style app" is already well-defined. (b) It made "Universal app" a synonym of the same thing. (c) It alleged that traditional apps cannot access Windows Runtime. It claimed that (d) improvements in #2 are not verifiable by the sources given. |
4 | 654168654-next | Fleet Command | Reviewed #3. Discovered that 3a through 3c are not verifiable and the 3d claim is incorrect. Hence, it is a blanket revert. Sent this message to Diego: Special:Diff/654193269/654359967 |
5 | 654358652-654468949 | Diego Moya | Edit summary reads: Double checked the sources, they definitely don't say "name changes in this area continue through 2015" nor "once used" - that's [[WP:SYNTH]. "Universal apps" in particular goes as far as 2012. But in reality, this edit is a blanket revert to #3 state that adds "once{{ fv}}" and "which were also to take advantage of Windows Runtime.{{ fv}}". So, basically it has the sum of all the problems of #2 and #3 and some misplaced irrelevant {{ fv}} tags too. |
One minor edit and one bot edit ignored | |||
6 | 654471039-next | Fleet Command | Reverted to #2. |
7 | 654507478-next | 173.53.57.63 | Reverted to #6 |
8 | 654599191-next | Fleet Command | Reverted to #2 |
9 | 654651230-next | 173.53.57.63 | Reverted to #6 |
10 | 654695052-next | Codename Lisa | Reverted to #2 |
One edit by Dewritech here | |||
11 | 654810878-655185257 | Diego Moya | A brand-new edit, but in the same line as #3. (a) It drops "Universal app". (b) Redefines "Windows apps" term, not as a new name for "Metro-style apps", but as a something whose definition that may or may not overlap with Metro-style apps. (Going back to square one.) (c) Calls "Windows app" a rebranding, causing a cascading contradiction. In effect, "Metro-style app", "Windows 8 app" and "Windows Store app" are redefined by removing Metro compliance requirement. (d) It puts an {{ undue-inline}} in front of "which were also to take advantage of Windows Runtime", apparently accepting it is verifiable; see reply on 14:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC) (e) A new ambiguous "supporting the platform" is added. The resulting text is a jungle of contradictions. |
12 | 655187736-next | Codename Lisa | Reverted changes in #11 |
13 | 655188527-655191457 | Diego Moya | Tagged the problem area with {{ fv}} and {{ undue-inline}}. However, one of the {{ fv}} tag is placed in front of clause that we decided didn't fail verification. Another is placed in front of ' and "Windows apps"', which Diego himself has written. |
Fleet Command ( talk) 12:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
@ User:Codename Lisa I know this has been talked about many times before, and I think it is common enough to say that we move this article to Microsoft Design Language. Metro is no more, and news, official and third-party sources, haven't referred to the UI as Metro for a long time. In addition this official powerpoint from microsoft mentions Microsoft Design Language on slide 21. WikIan -( talk) 23:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not Moved ( non-admin closure) ExtorcDev ( talk) 09:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Metro (design language) → Microsoft Design Language – I think it's been called Microsoft Design Language since 2012, but for some reason nobody has taken the time to move this article? Wow, and somehow Microsoft Design Language doesn't even redirect here... Also, this Talk page should probably be archived by a bot, because it's too long. 2001:1C06:19CA:D600:48FD:7584:CFA8:F952 ( talk) 15:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. >>> Extorc. talk 17:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 18:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)