Talk:Microsoft Movies & TV: Difference between revisions

Microsoft Stub‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrosoftWikipedia:WikiProject MicrosoftTemplate:WikiProject MicrosoftMicrosoft articles Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cloudbound has recently replaced the computer icon of Xbox Video with its logo.

Unfortunately, the logo, apart from not being informative, was non-free. The computer icon is free and is on Commons. In such cases, Wikipedia explicitly bans the use of non-free content. But you might want to see a similar discussion in Xbox Music, where the logo and the computer icon are equally non-free. Fleet Command (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. The computer icon arguably is just as uninformative. Nevertheless, the icons serve their purpose in the articles well. Happy new year, Cloudbound (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am not sure I agree with "The computer icon arguably is just as uninformative". Computer icons are the primary mean of visual identification of computer programs in Windows, especially since Windows 7. They are like a pictogram that have the same meaning as the name of the app.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 03:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A new name has officially been announced. --LyThienDao1984 (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Daylen (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Can a Windows Insider who has lots of music replace the XBOX Music screenshot. I only have a few songs in my library so most of my page is blank; as such, I don't think that my music library would make a good screenshot. Also, an official one from Microsoft would work.

Daylen (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Daylen.

You'd get better results if you make the request in the relevant article's talk page, Talk:Groove Music, not here. I can change it, but I'm just done changing the screenshot of this article and I'm dropping right now. So, if nobody did anything within the next few hours, I'll be at your service.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done It's updated now! Sorry about putting the message on this talk page, I have 42 tabs open and the tabs were right next to each other so when I got a new email notification and replied, I must of clicked on the wrong tab.

Daylen (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, everyone

And hello, Rob984; you should probably see this.

I contested the move from "Movies & TV (Microsoft service)" to "Microsoft Movies & TV" because it violated both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATDAB. Although I crave a suffix shorter than "(Microsoft service)", the name with the "Microsoft" prefix is not common. The "Microsoft"-less form is far more common. As a matter of fact, the app itself and the service itself does not use the prefix.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 09:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Actually, Movies & TV is free for grab. Why not? Codename Lisa (talk) 09:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

Please see the sources I added:

• Microsoft Movies & TV, microsoft.com/en-US.
• Microsoft Films & TV, microsoft.com/en-GB.

Here is the equivalent page for Groove:

• Groove, microsoft.com

I don't have Windows 10, however from screenshots I notice the prefix "Microsoft" isn't used in Word, Excel, etc. Microsoft's apps don't seem to be prefixed in Windows 10.

I don't think Movies & TV is WP:PRECISE: "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that."

I also think it is ambiguous, for example Google's service is called "Play Movies & TV".

And per WP:NATURALDIS: "If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title". Natural disambiguation is prefered to parenthetical disambiguation: "Parenthetical disambiguation: Wikipedia's standard disambiguation technique when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title".

Rob984 (talk) 10:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rob984: So, to sum it up, you are putting up an other stuff exists discussion? This type of discussion is the second most hated informal fallacy in Wikipedia.

I don't discuss irrelevant products; even though you seem to have ignored WP:COMMONNAME entirely. And as for precision, "Microsoft Movies & TV" is equally imprecise and false too; the app itself and the service itself do not have "Microsoft" in them. Frankly, any other external resource that uses an obscure name is unworthy of notice or bother. I strongly oppose going the length of forgery just to avoid a pair of parenthesis.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not "other stuff exists". This is multiple references to a topic using a specific name by a primary source. I have not mentioned any "external resource". Here are three microsoft websites consecutively referring to the service as "Microsoft Movies & TV". The first explicitly quotes "Microsoft Movies & TV" as the new name,

"Xbox Video is now Microsoft Movies & TV"

"Q: What is changing?

A: 'Xbox Video' is now 'Microsoft Movies & TV'. Our new name speaks to the breadth of Microsoft devices that our customers use to watch movies & TV shows – from PCs, Tablets and Phones, to watching videos on their Xbox consoles or on the Web."

–Xbox Video is now Microsoft Movies & TV, www.xbox.com/video

"System Requirements: Microsoft Movies & TV requires a broadband internet connection and a Microsoft account..."

"The Microsoft Movies & TV app is currently available for Windows (10.X), Xbox One and Xbox 360..."

"Availability: Microsoft Movies & TV is currently available in the following 21 countries..."

"Usage Restrictions: The Microsoft Movies & TV app allows you to watch films and TV programmes..."

–Microsoft Movies & TV, microsoft.com/en-US

"What is the Microsoft Movies & TV app?"

"Microsoft Movies & TV brings you the latest HD movies and TV shows on your Windows 10 device."

–What is the Microsoft Movies & TV app?, windows.microsoft.com

Please see WP:NAMINGCRITERIA:

"Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize."

"Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English."

"Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. (See § Precision and disambiguation, below.)"

How is a name that clarifies that the service is from Microsoft not more precise? It is ambiguous otherwise as there are other services referred to as "Movies & TV". Sainsbury's Movies & TV is another example.

WP:COMMONNAME states: "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural". Is "Movies & TV" is more recognizable than "Microsoft Movies & TV"? Is "Movies & TV (Microsoft service)" more natural than "Microsoft Movies & TV"?

And exactly how is Microsoft Word different to Microsoft Movies & TV? Both lack the prefix in Windows 10. Should Microsoft Word be moved to "Word (Microsoft service)" simply because it lack the prefix on Microsoft's own operating system, and that it is commonly referred to as "Word"? No, because just like the title currently used here, it is not more recognisable, natural, or precise.

You base your whole argument solely on an app in WIndows 10 using a shorter form as the title, and then accuse me of fallacy? You're kidding me right? If you are unwilling to discuss then I'm certain a request for comment will achieve a reasonable outcome.

Rob984 (talk) 22:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. :)

• "A: 'Xbox Video' is now 'Microsoft Movies & TV'." And now it is simply "Movies & TV". Things change. Even when "Microsoft" prefix was in place, the popular form was "Microsoft"-less.
• "Please see WP:NAMINGCRITERIA." I did. "Obscure" and "made up" weren't part of them. "Movies & TV" is equally precise, equally recognizable and more natural. Point "Movies & TV".
• "You base your whole argument solely on an app in WIndows 10 [sic] using a shorter form as the title." EXACTLY. And that is the correct thing to do. Sometimes, the only authority on one's title is itself, e.g. the name of a book, app, Wikipedia username. IMHO, millions of source can say your username is User:Bob489 or mine is User:Codename Julia. Your user account says it is Rob984 and mine says it is Codename Lisa; those other sources are unworthy of notice or bother. In this case, title bar, service header and about dialog box all say "Movies & TV". No "Microsoft".

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 12:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Me again, like on the Groove page I've noticed that Microsoft is inconsistent again with naming their applications and found here that they named it "Microsoft Movies & TV", I'm not suggesting a move but I am going to add it to the introduction, and if someone reverts I'd like to contest them here. --58.187.228.55 (talk) 05:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]