Content deleted Content added
→Nomenclature: new section |
m Reverted 1 edit by 205.189.94.88 (talk) to last revision by Cewbot |
||
| (23 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{WikiProject
{{WikiProject Computing|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Microsoft|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Microsoft Windows|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Software|importance=mid}}
}}
{{archives}}
Line 13 ⟶ 18:
:Best regards,
:[[User:Codename Lisa|Codename Lisa]] ([[User talk:Codename Lisa|talk]]) 07:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
:: Windows 10 search box refers to these as "Trusted Windows Store app". Metro-style was simply a [[codename]] used in development. <span style="border:1px solid #f57900;padding:1px;">[[User:ViperSnake151|<
::: {{replyto|ViperSnake151}} Do you have a purpose from repeating Dogmaticeclectic's sentence from three years ago?
::: Best regards,
::: [[User:Codename Lisa|Codename Lisa]] ([[User talk:Codename Lisa|talk]]) 08:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
:::: Microsoft is also officially using the term "Universal Windows Platform" (UWP) <span style="border:1px solid #f57900;padding:1px;">[[User:ViperSnake151|<
:::::{{Replyto|ViperSnake151}} Yes, and the article mentions both "Universal Windows Platform" and "UWP". What is your point?
:::::Best regards,
Line 38 ⟶ 43:
:Best regards,
:[[User:Codename Lisa|Codename Lisa]] ([[User talk:Codename Lisa|talk]]) 21:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
::I'm sorry, but this article reads like an opinionated PR piece that tries to shame other types of software. <span style="border:1px solid #f57900;padding:1px;">[[User:ViperSnake151|<
:::I personally don't see how it seems opinionated and the content seems to be well sourced and verified, also any usage of Microsoft's terms is quoted to make sure that the reader understands that the editors don't take these weasel words too serious. --[[User:Hoang the Hoangest|Hoang the Hoangest]] ([[User talk:Hoang the Hoangest|talk]]) 09:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
:::{{Replyto|ViperSnake151}} I asked for your feedback two years ago. Why didn't you say that back then? Best regards, [[User:Codename Lisa|Codename Lisa]] ([[User talk:Codename Lisa|talk]]) 16:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
:::: So basically, because I apparently did not respond two years ago, all of my comments are invalid? <span style="border:1px solid #f57900;padding:1px;">[[User:ViperSnake151|<
::::: Um... First, you should actually comment. Which words? Where? and What objection?
::::: Only after you make the comment I can tell whether it is valid or not. (Although, you have never made invalid comments.) Of course, if it is about something other than Naypta's issue, please kindly open another thread.
Line 49 ⟶ 54:
== Create a Universal Apps article as a successor==
Per [[WP:COMMONNAME]] and according to [https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=metro%20apps%2C%20universal%20apps%2C%20universal%20windows%20platform%20apps%2C%20metro%20style%20apps&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT%2B8 Google Trends] Universal Apps is now a more popular and a more common term than Metro-style apps, which was never really a COMMONNAME to begin with (it was always Metro apps). <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #03A9F4, -4px -4px 15px #4CAF50;"><
:Hello, {{u|WikIan}}
Line 58 ⟶ 63:
:Best regards,
:[[User:Codename Lisa|Codename Lisa]] ([[User talk:Codename Lisa|talk]]) 16:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
::Hi {{u|Codename Lisa}}, I fully acknowledge, as a developer, that metro apps are not universal apps, but they are "Windows apps" and per [[WP:COMMONNAME]] that should be this article's title. I also never said to delete this article, and fully understand its existence/importance as well. However, universal apps (aside from UWP) is also very important, and now even more important than metro-style apps, so does it deserve its own article? <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #03A9F4, -4px -4px 15px #4CAF50;"><
:::"{{tq| but they are "Windows apps" and per [[WP:COMMONNAME]]}}"
:::You need to read the WP:COMMONNAME's contents, not just its title! "Windows apps" is ambiguous and does not fit the bill for being the article title. "App" simply means "application" or "computer program"; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Computer_program&diff=684064264&oldid=684009462 I once showed 25 sources to that effect]. There is nothing in "Windows app" that suggests it is referring to those (frankly) low-quality [[mobile app]]s based on [[Metro design language]] and [[Windows Runtime]]. Same goes for "Modern apps". "Windows Store apps" is now Microsoft's official name, and I expect one day it will replace Metro-style app as the title, but now its ambiguous aspect has too much weight. (Windows Store also sells desktop apps.)
Line 68 ⟶ 73:
:::Best regards,
:::[[User:Codename Lisa|Codename Lisa]] ([[User talk:Codename Lisa|talk]]) 21:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
::::{{Ping|Codename Lisa}} So, I'm withdrawing my stance here. However, I think that Universal Apps will become more and more prevalent and therefore require its own article someday. Thanks, <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #03A9F4, -4px -4px 15px #4CAF50;"><
:::::{{Ping|WikIan}} I have a question for you though: Can you give me an example of one thing that you can say in article titled "Universal Apps" but not in article titled "Universal Windows Platform"? Best regards, [[User:Codename Lisa|Codename Lisa]] ([[User talk:Codename Lisa|talk]]) 14:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::Examples of universal apps, how they are cross platform. The design, layout, Microsoft design language 2, touch and mouse optimization, new developer options in the store, etc. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #03A9F4, -4px -4px 15px #4CAF50;"><
::::::So, basically, everything this article is already saying. —[[User:Codename Lisa|Codename Lisa]] ([[User talk:Codename Lisa|talk]]) 18:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Line 160 ⟶ 165:
::::::I understand. Let's make it happen. Best regards, [[User:Codename Lisa|Codename Lisa]] ([[User talk:Codename Lisa|talk]]) 08:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
:::::::{{ping|Goldenshimmer|Codename Lisa}} I just came across a link to this discussion on [[WP:NPOVN]] and realized no one else had responded, so figured I'd give my 2 cents FWIW. Goldenshimmer, I didn't interpret the sections you pointed out as having a negative tone. To me, they seemed to be in a "dispassionate" tone, but I do think the wording is a little awkward, so maybe that makes it easy for us to interpret it differently. IMO the bigger issue is the sparse sourcing. There are also some grammar issues that I'll try to fix up now. I do think it could use some tweaks and more sources. Goldenshimmer, do you have suggestions for better wording? [[User:Permstrump|<
{{outdent}}
Hi {{ping|Permstrump|Codename Lisa}}. :) Sorry I took so long to get back to you about this. Thank you for considering my thoughts about the article! Here are my suggested changes:
Line 235 ⟶ 240:
{{talkref}}
:{{u|Codename Lisa}}: I was paraphrasing the source I cited that you keep deleting when you revert. It's from April 2015 and says: "The latest term endorsed by Microsoft is 'Windows apps.' In addition, programs that run only on Windows PCs will be called 'Windows desktop applications'". It also says that Windows as changed what it calls things a number of times, so while what you said may have been true at one point, we have to go with what the source says. You're version may or may not be true now, I have no idea because you're not providing a source. [[User:Permstrump|<
::{{tq|I was paraphrasing the source I cited...}} No, you weren't. Let's call that terrible mistake #1. I already said why.
::{{tq|...because you're not providing a source.}} Windows 10 itself!
::–Best regards,
::[[User:Codename Lisa|Codename Lisa]] ([[User talk:Codename Lisa|talk]]) 14:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
:::Paraphrasing isn't a terrible mistake. It's exactly what we're supposed to do. I don't know if you're right that that is what Windows 10 says because you haven't provided a source. [[User:Permstrump|<
::::{{Ping|Permstrump}} Look my friend, I understand that the most difficult thing in Wikipedia is telling someone that he or she is wrong. Because that's when the ability to assume good faith is stress-tested. But trust me: You did intend to paraphrase but ended up creating an amalgamation of something that is neither here nor there. Now, please, look at what you wrote again.
Line 264 ⟶ 269:
== Nomenclature ==
I removed this section because of the incorrect information. Not all Windows apps are UWP apps, not all UWP apps exist on both mobile and desktop, not just UWP apps that meet specifications and are installed from the store are called Trusted Windows store apps, because Windows Runtime (8.X) apps like the wikipedia app are also called Trusted store apps. Frankly, computer programs and utilities are all called desktop apps. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #03A9F4, -4px -4px 15px #4CAF50;"><
:{{Ping|WikIan}} And as always, you are running away with yourself!
:"{{tq|Not all Windows apps are UWP apps}}". True, but irrelevant. What you deleted was the inverse of this sentence. It said 'a UWP app is called a "Windows app"'. And it is true.
:"{{tq|not just UWP apps that meet specifications and are installed from the store are called Trusted Windows store apps}}". Same mistake as above. You deleted the inverse of this sentence, which was true.
:[[User:FleetCommand|'''<span style="color:#FCC200">Fleet</span>'''<span style="color:#FC00C2">Command</span>]] <small>([[User talk:FleetCommand|<span style="color:#00C2FC">Speak your mind!</span>]])</small> 21:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
:Let me give you an example: "A woman is a human" is correct. But "A human is a woman" is not. You cannot delete the sentence "A woman is a human" as wrong and argue that a human can be a man too. This argument is only valid for deleting the second sentence, not the first. [[User:FleetCommand|'''<span style="color:#FCC200">Fleet</span>'''<span style="color:#FC00C2">Command</span>]] <small>([[User talk:FleetCommand|<span style="color:#00C2FC">Speak your mind!</span>]])</small> 21:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
:I have said this before, but I say it again: Just because I think you are wrong doesn't mean that I think you are acting in bad faith. [[User:FleetCommand|'''<span style="color:#FCC200">Fleet</span>'''<span style="color:#FC00C2">Command</span>]] <small>([[User talk:FleetCommand|<span style="color:#00C2FC">Speak your mind!</span>]])</small> 21:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
::{{ping|FleetCommand}} {{ping|Codename Lisa}}This may be the case, but this article is one of the most confusing articles I've ever read on Wikipedia. Here's why:
::#While the title and intro talk about UWP apps, and one of the sections talk about Windows 8.x, thus implying the UWP apps existed on Windows 8.x, the nomenclature section fails to even talk about non-UWP apps at all.
::#It also fails to mention that the definition of Windows store apps include Centennial "Desktop Bridge" converted apps, UWP apps, Windows 8.x runtime apps, converted web apps, etc. etc.
::#This article mentions Universal apps but doesn't realize that universal apps != UWP apps. See [http://www.windowscentral.com/what-is-a-universal-windows-app this article]
::#It also seems to lead that UWP apps are the "new name" for metro-style apps.
::#It fails to mention that these apps were also called Modern apps at one point
::#It fails to mention that UWP apps while theoretically targeting mobile AND desktop (etc...) aren't inherently and directly available on more than one type of device, they must be specifically allowed by the developer for both mobile and PC and contain UI/UX optimizations
::#This article should just be named "Windows apps"
::<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #03A9F4, -4px -4px 15px #4CAF50;"><span style="color: black;">WikIan [[User:WikIan|<span style="color: black;">-</span>]]([[User talk:WikIan|<span style="color: black;">talk</span>]])</span></span> 21:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
:::Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Dude, I said stop running away with yourself, and you just accelerate!
:::#Yes. It is deliberate. A solid nomenclature didn't exist before Windows 10 and wandering into that area is a can of worms that if you open, violates [[WP:V]], [[WP:RS]], [[WP:DUE]] and [[WP:NPOV]] all across the board.
:::#Deliberate! This is out of scope. You may not have noticed but the subject of this article is "Universal Windows Platform apps".
:::#Same mistake for the third time: A UWP app is a universal app.
:::#Same mistake for the fourth time: Take any UWP app you like. Take it back in time to 2012. People will call it Metro-style app.
:::#Deliberate! It is not clear beyond doubt that Microsoft intended to use "modern" as a title or simply as an adjective, for advertisement and appeal. Microsoft itself implies that the latter is true but of course, mainstream media has downplayed this aspect.
:::#Same mistake for the fifth time: The article does not claim the contrary. But of course, this could be I bea good addition.
:::#And this last one is the evidence that you are running away with yourself: First you assume this article is about all "Windows app" and then criticize its failure to meet this standard that is only in your head.
:::[[User:FleetCommand|'''<span style="color:#FCC200">Fleet</span>'''<span style="color:#FC00C2">Command</span>]] <small>([[User talk:FleetCommand|<span style="color:#00C2FC">Speak your mind!</span>]])</small> 22:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
::::#In it's current state is already failing [[WP:V]] by stating Windows 8.X is part of UWP. Since there isn't a "Windows apps" article, we violate [[WP:NPOV]] by showing just UWP as the sole app-platform for Windows. Much of what I said is verifiable [https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/porting/ here] which is obviously a [[WP:RS]].
::::#Isn't information on how apps are brought to the UWP important? Again we violate [[WP:NPOV]] by only stating that apps can only be brought to UWP from 8.x to UWP w/o listing other methods.
::::#"UWP app is a universal app" Huh? Universal apps are clearly defined here: [https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/apps/br211384.aspx this article] was published in 2015 and [https://blogs.windows.com/buildingapps/2014/07/24/introduction-to-universal-windows-apps-in-windows-8-1-and-windows-phone-8-1/#v5KEUBHEqJTk33zI.97 this one in 2014] and neither are UWP related. A universal app not inherently UWP, and even though a UWP may work "universally" across devices, it isn't the same as being a "universal app". Confusing, I know.
::::#There aren't any [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] that states UWP apps is a new name for metro-style apps (because it isn't!!!). You can still run metro-style apps (aka Windows Runtime 8.X apps, universal or not) apps in Windows 10 w/o porting to UWP.
::::#But it was a name and thus if we take a [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]] then we should include it no matter how "advertising" Microsoft makes it or how the media tries to avoid that.
::::#I think it would be :).
::::#Notice that [[Windows_apps]] links here.
::::<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #03A9F4, -4px -4px 15px #4CAF50;"><span style="color: black;">WikIan [[User:WikIan|<span style="color: black;">-</span>]]([[User talk:WikIan|<span style="color: black;">talk</span>]])</span></span> 00:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
:::: As CL said above, "Metro-style apps are not all universal apps" <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #03A9F4, -4px -4px 15px #4CAF50;"><span style="color: black;">WikIan [[User:WikIan|<span style="color: black;">-</span>]]([[User talk:WikIan|<span style="color: black;">talk</span>]])</span></span> 00:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello, {{u|WikIan}}. I am here to inform you that I saw your ping notification. I'd like to let you know that I am staying away from this discussion per [[WP:CANVASS]]. Feel free to invoke a [[WP:3O]]. All I can say is that both of you must give the words of each other due considerations. —My best, [[User:Codename Lisa|Codename Lisa]] ([[User talk:Codename Lisa|talk]]) 10:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
:{{u|Codename Lisa}}, I pinged you on this discussion, because you've made the most edits to this article, and thought you should have a say in addressing the above items. Thanks, <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #03A9F4, -4px -4px 15px #4CAF50;"><span style="color: black;">WikIan [[User:WikIan|<span style="color: black;">-</span>]]([[User talk:WikIan|<span style="color: black;">talk</span>]])</span></span> 12:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
::{{Ping|WikIan}} Thanks for your consideration and your intelligent answer. I appreciate it.
::But despite my oath to patch things up with you, I simply mustn't be part of the consensus-building process; not now and not here.
::There is another issue too: For a long time, I was afraid of bringing this article out of my userpage. The reason was that I felt this topic is highly controversial and writing an article on it was like opening a can of worms. The most important issue was the title of the article. I simply could not come up with a satisfactory title. "Metro-style app" didn't seem right to me because any app, both traditional and new generation could theoretically adhere to the Metro design language. "Windows Runtime app" sounded wrong because Microsoft had allowed web browsers from Google and Firefox to have a presence in Windows Store and have access to the full repertoire of Windows APIs. They weren't Windows Runtime-only. "Windows Store apps" seemed wrong, because technically, you could sideload apps. But people were angry over something new that had come with Windows 8. The trouble was, they were also looking for a name that Microsoft had denied them.
::Fortunately, my background in linguistics eventually rescued me. Language does not concerns itself with abject technical accuracy and emphasizes that what's correct is what's used widely. In linguistics, there is always exception. For example, a human can be defined as a two-legged creature and will NOT be stripped of the humanity status even when he loses a leg. So, all those apps that were available from Windows Store? They were Metro-style apps even if they neither cared for the Metro design language nor for Windows Runtime. All those non-existent apps that could theoretically adhere to Metro design language? They were not Metro-style app; even if one day, they came into existence in overwhelming force, the Metro-style app's definition won't change. (The seeming incongruity between the title and the definition is only something for etymology.) Apps packaged in APPX container were Windows Store apps even those that were sideloaded. So Metro-style apps and Windows Store apps were one and the same.
::I see that Windows 10 has changed the playground a bit: "App" = "packaged in APPX". "Trusted Store App" = "An App that, even when side-loaded, exists on Windows Store". "Desktop app" = "A shortcut to some EXE file".
::Now, you and FC must decide whether this article must be about everything packaged in APPX (App) or those UWP apps that made people so angry. Just mind the inbound links.
::Best regards,<br/>[[User:Codename Lisa|Codename Lisa]] ([[User talk:Codename Lisa|talk]]) 15:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
| |||