Talk:Metro (design language)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Useless links[edit]

All these links to Zune are not usefull and relevant to the Metro language. Macaldo (talk) 13:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

These links are there because the article was created when most of the Metro language was only on Zune devices/software, I would get rid of some of them. The Zune website(s) doesn't really represent Metro in any significant way. --Interframe (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Principles section[edit]

This section is written like an advertisement, with highly ambiguous language, and needs a complete re-write for WP:NPOV. Examples:

  • Do a Lot with Very Little
  • Feels Responsive and Alive
  • Creates a System
  • Don’t Try to be What It’s NOT
  • Be Direct
  • etc.

These are completely meaningless soundbites, and have no place in an encyclopedia article. Mr. Credible (talk) 10:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

So, how to change it? Provide concrete examples of the design principles? Remove the flashy language? More quotes? (talk) 23:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I've tried rewriting it into paragraph form. Feel free to remove the advertisement banner if you think it works. Given the resulting size of the paragraph, though, it may not need its own section anymore. Emprovision (talk) 06:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Paragraph form is inadequate - it refers to the implementation of the Metro Design Language as seen in Windows Phone 7, not the actual design guidelines as stated by Microsoft. Either the paragraph be rewritten under a different heading, more accurately changed to represent the device neutral guidelines of the Metro, or left in it's current form as a lit of INTERNAL guidelines, which are clearly marked as Microsoft's internal guidelines. If you wish, you can keep the current form and remove the fluffy, sugar coated words with more technical explanations - but the paragraph written by Emprovision is off the mark in regards to what it should actually be describing. -- (talk) 13:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that a whole section on Microsoft's internal principles is necessary, nor does it present useful information to the reader. See how they handled it at Snow White design language (although Snow White is an industrial language). Rather than laying out the company's subjective vision (something like "looks sleek, modern"), it simply presents factual information on the details that entail the design language ("minimal surface texturing"). Instructions like "Celebrate Typography" do little to inform the reader, and it's difficult to rewrite without using peacock words and maintaining the intended meaning (which is ambiguous in any case). I won't delete the bullet-point list again, but I definitely think that it needs to be condensed into an informative and neutral form. Perhaps a paragraph that discusses each major point ("most user actions are reciprocated with animations") and then references Microsoft's vision (" give the user the impression that the UI is 'alive'")? Emprovision (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

If you know anything about design, you would know that the understanding the principles is the most important thing you can learn or be informed about. Now, the words that are provided by Microsoft maybe biased, but that doesn't mean you get rid of the most important thing that any design language-article in an encyclopedia can provide. It makes sense to change it to be less "biased", but it isn't right to go and turn the principles into something else thats not true to what the design language actually is. --Interframe (talk) 08:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Full-bleed canvas[edit]

The use of 'full bleed canvas' in this article isn't defined (nor is it defined as used here on full bleed, which the article linked to). A real full bleed canvas is a canvas painting which continues around onto the sides of the frame; or prints are full bleed if they are printed beyond the edges to which they are to be cut. It seems that Microsoft is neologising here, and using the term to just mean a graphical element which continues beyond the physical screen (so that you must scroll to see all of it).

This is confusing because the print meaning, ie 'without borders', describes pretty much all user interfaces, and in the painter's meaning, the windows phones don't appear to have displays that continue round the sides of the phone. The images used to describe full-bleed in this article don't help, as they don't show how this differs from other UIs; what is missing is that the microsoft UI is not always completely visible on the device. Can we have a better explanation and picture please?

For an example of better, MS's own Windows Phone 7 presentation: page 13 and onwards, shows similar screenshots, but with a phone superimposed so that it is obvious that the UI is not intended to fit inside the screen dimensions. (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree - I just read the article and I was at a loss as well when I read that. If the person who wrote this could give us the reason why it's known as a "full bleed canvas" that'd be nice. -download ׀ talk 01:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with (henceforth Wiki-John). Full-bleed is referenced here, here and in this pdf. However, as Wiki-John qualified, the distinction being made is that the Metro style uses a continuous layout rather than the current separate panes (as common in current smartphones). Hence 'full-bleed' seems to be a marketing term rather than a technical description of the capabilities of the phone. Perhaps we should remove this term? IMO, the sentence is sufficient, concise and accurate regardless of the term: The resulting interfaces favour larger hubs over smaller buttons and often feature laterally scrolling canvases. (I've removed the term)Bunston (talk) 01:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

"Quotes are not advertisements"[edit]

This particular quote is very long and takes a lot of space in the article. It does make the article look like a Microsoft advertisement overall. Disproportionately large attention is given to Microsoft's own view of the technology instead of a neutral view. I've removed the quote. - Sikon (talk) 05:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but those principles are really the whole point of this article. To understand the design language from the people who made it. I think this information is absolutely critical for this article. It also does not serve as an advertisement. It is a guideline for those wanting to create software using this design language. --Interframe (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
While I reserve judgement about it being an "advertisement", I don't see why this quote is necessary. An article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject, and this quote seems to be adding unnecessary details. I would also agree that it puts too much focus on the primary source's view, thus violating WP:WEIGHT.
Wikipedia is not a "how-to", and is not a guideline for those wanting to create software. The point of this, or any other article, is not to understand the article's subject from the point of view of those that are closely associated with the subject. The article has to adhere to WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. Your editing history has an apparent focus on Microsoft related articles. To avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, I would suggest that you gain a consensus on this before reinserting the material.
As for the images, if they are all under copyright, then WP:NFC's strict guidelines apply, and in that situation I think it would be best to remove them and discuss why they are necessary, instead of leaving them in the article and hoping for the best. - SudoGhost 00:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Third party[edit]

I restored these references because they are reliable sources that verify the information in the article. The reasoning that they should be removed because they are not a "Microsoft source" is in opposition to Wikipedia's policies concerning third-party sources, that articles not only allow them, but require them. - SudoGhost 23:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

They are not reliable sources, at least according those guidelines, simply as they the authors personal opinion, and not actually backed by any facts in the article. The source who mentions Encarta & MSN does not work for Microsoft, and had no hand in actually designing the design language. Finding a random person's opinion on the internet and then putting it in article as a source does not count as referencing or reliable sourcing. Hence this assertation that it has anything to do with Encarta is an opinion and the article misleadingly presents this as a fact. (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Cnet is a reliable source with editorial oversight, well within the guidelines for reliable sources. If you feel that this is not the case, you're more than welcome to take it to WP:RSN. It does not matter that the person does not work for Microsoft, it is in fact preferred that they not, in keeping with WP:Third-party sources. - SudoGhost 22:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

no article on WInJS[edit]

G. Robert Shiplett 13:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Metro No More: Windows’ New Interface Suffers Trademark Woes[edit]

News: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. A new discussion may be started when and if the baby acquires a legit name. Favonian (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Metro (design language)Windows 8 style UI - Microsoft have dropped the Metro name following a trademark dispute and have instructed developers to now describe the design language as "Windows 8 style UI" according to the BBC. Cloudbound (talk) 23:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe Microsoft have yet to replace the name with an alternative; and even if the article name changes, its important to discuss that Metro was once the internal codename of the design language, and it still may be an internal codename not to be mentioned in public by Microsoft employees. There has been a rumor about this, reported by The Verge, regarding an internal Microsoft memo to employees, however this is unconfirmed. --Interframe (talk) 04:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Support - At least until Microsoft comes up with an alternative if it does. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 05:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The term "Metro" is used heavily in the technology press, and will likely remain the predominant term for this design. The notion that it's "an internal codename not to be mentioned in public by Microsoft employees" is contradicted by hundreds of official Microsoft web pages. Further to the point, there has been no adoption of the proposed term "Windows 8 style UI" anywhere. Should we also rename the Hotmail article to "Windows Live Hotmail" to conform with Microsoft's branding policies? No, because in the real world it's called "Hotmail." --Stybn (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
    Comment Slightly touchy response there Stybn. The Microsoft web pages you mention may start to be changed now that Microsoft have chosen to drop the Metro name. Cloudbound (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    It doesn't matter if we believe that webpages may start to be changed. Wikipedia articles are reflective, not speculative. If something else becomes the WP:COMMONNAME, then a renaming would be warranted, but until then we shouldn't change an article's name in anticipation of that shifting, especially when the proposed name change is a just temporary placeholder. - SudoGhost 02:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We should wait until Microsoft has announced an alternative name for the UI, and even then it wouldn't necessarily replace the Metro name, one is about a design language and the other is about the name of a User Interface, ie. Windows Aero or the Aqua UI. Its also imporant to note that the "Windows 8-style" UI name would not apply to other Microsoft products like Xbox or the new, for example. There still may be reason to keep this article the way it is. --Interframe (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - "Metro" still appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME for this subject. "Windows 8 style UI" is a recent thing, but still not the "common name", and "Windows 8 style UI" appears to just be a temporary descriptor, not some new official name that's going to last. - SudoGhost 09:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Is it appropriate for us to retain a name that's an apparent trademark violation? --BDD (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Metro trademark feud[edit]

Surprised that the Metro Newspapers group hasn't bothered to force Microsoft off the use of that word (yet?). They've been using Metro as a brand name and title worldwide since the nineties, with hundreds of millions of readers. I don't see Microsoft holding on to the name Metro for this very long. (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Article contradicts itself on Metro's new name[edit]

The lead states that "Windows 8 style UI" is its official name, yet "Legal Issues" states that the name's a rumor.

I think there's a problem with that. Karjam, AKA KarjamP (talk) 10:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually microsoft confirms that they have changed the name to Modern UI and Microsoft Employees use it everytime someone says Metro on the Microsoft Forums.

Rnorris ([User talk:rnorris97|talk]]) 19:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Metro Is Now Modern UI[edit]

The Register (link) Says that microsoft decided to rename Metro UI into Modern UI. I request moving the page. THX YOU

From /Z, AndreZlatinShow on YouTube--Andzlatin (talk) 01:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I propose changing the name of this article to Microsoft Live Modern Windows 8 Metro Style User Interface Home Edition. --Stybn (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Stybn. I support you! Let's add the full version number too! Best sarcasms, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll try to refrain myself from making a sarcastic statement. Instead, I'll point you to the archived discussion. Zombifiertalk 13:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

We should Split this article[edit]

We should Split this article into:

  • Modern (design language)
  • Windows 8 UI
  • Windows Phone UI

Why? Because The news have said it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andzlatin (talkcontribs) 02:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Move to Modern UI[edit]


No consensus to move

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 am requesting to move 'Metro (design language)' to Modern UI, since that's the official name now. — John Biancato 20:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose - The "official name" was "Windows 8 style UI" less than a week ago, and "Metro" a week before that. There's no stability in this "official name", and at any rate articles aren't named by their official name, but rather the most commonly used name. It remains to be seen if the commonly used descriptor for the subject will change from "Metro". - SudoGhost 21:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Metro is a design language internally used in Microsoft. Thats what it always was. Modern UI is a user interface, not a design language. Huge difference. --Interframe (talk) 00:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Hi. From what I have seen, read or heard so far, "Metro" seems to be the most stable and the most common. So, we should adhere to WP:COMMONNAME by using Metro for the foreseeable future. Please take note that Visual Studio 2012 does not use "Modern UI"; instead, it uses "Windows Store App". Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: There's no official statement from MS. It's not official just because The Verge, Paul Thurrott or Mary Jo Foley or any other rumors say so. In fact, MS still use Metro about the design language. Cheers! Meewam (talk) 09:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Agree that "Metro" is the WP:COMMONNAME as of right now. We should probably wait at least until general availability before re-evaluating the best name for the article. Indrek (talk) 09:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Slight Oppose: The current title implies that this is a programming language, when it is more a UI philosophy. Perhaps rename it as "Metro UI"Supuhstar * § 03:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: Actually, on the Microsoft Forums, employees refer to it as Modern UI. And there is already a page on this and I showed my support for this on the Modern UI Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R.norris97 (talkcontribs) 00:03, 28 August 2012 (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.

"Microsoft design language" may be the new official name for Metro (the design language) (from MSDN)[edit]

Hi all.

While "Metro-style app" appears to have found a new official name "Windows Store app", that's not the replacement name for the Metro design language. (thankfully... as that would have made it "Windows Store design language"...)

However, I believe I may have come across the "official" new name of the design language:

Microsoft design language

You can see it being used on the following pages from "Dev Center - Windows Store apps" on MSDN:

Make great Windows Store apps

Design case study: iPad to Windows Store app

Guidelines for typography

...and also on this MSDN page:

Roadmap for Windows Store apps using DirectX and C++

You will notice that on those pages, "Microsoft design language" is the new term for the design language (but not the apps). The first page also had 2 occurrences of "Microsoft design style" (likely a replacement for "Metro style").

Now, of course, I don't know how "official" this makes it. There are only a few instances/mentions of this new name, and also, I suppose it is entirely possible that those pages may change. Also, as often mentioned before, Microsoft apparently started to use "Modern UI" in a few places for a little while: [1] [2]

However, this is MSDN (as opposed to, say, a blog or the MS "Events" site), so I suppose this may be more "official" and may carry more weight?

In any case, at this point in time, at least on MSDN, it would appear that this is the new official name for the design language.

Niamer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I found some additional evidence that supports this.
I previously posted the link: Make great Windows Store apps
Now, I cannot find the old version of this page on Google, but I Google'd the text on the page and found another MSDN page with the exact same content as that page:
It really is the exact same text. (A text diff confirms it.)
And the old version of this page is still there; it was cached by Google on 5 Sep 2012 08:48:04 GMT: the cached past version of
Since Google will update its cached pages later, I took a screenshot (as of 2012 09 18) of the "before vs after":
You will see how the instances of "Metro" were replaced:
"Metro style apps" became "Windows Store apps".
"Metro design style" became "Microsoft design style".
"Metro design language" became "Microsoft design language".
Niamer (talk) 03:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
You're posting the same exact information at Talk:Windows 8, so it might be better to discuss it there in order to keep the discussion in one place. - SudoGhost 03:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, apologies for that. Technically, this article is the correct one to post in, but this does concern Windows 8 too in a fairly major way, so I "re-posted" in that article's talk page. Let us continue there. Niamer (talk) 03:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I just readded to the article the fact that certain MSDN pages are now using "Microsoft design language".
What I added was this:
Certain MSDN pages have started to use the terms "Microsoft design language" and "Microsoft design style" to replace "Metro design language" and "Metro design style" respectively. [1][2][3][4][5][6]
Shortly after, I see that SudoGhost had removed that addition and stated in his/her Edit summary:
Imgur is not a reliable source in any way, and primary sources cannot be used to suggest things not explicitly stated in them. Do you have a third-party reliable source that can be used to verify this?
That Imgur image (this) was uploaded by me, actually. I wanted to show the "before" v.s. "after" of the Make great Windows Store apps (MSDN Subscriptions) page, which shows how the terms "Metro design language" and "Metro design style" were replaced with "Microsoft design language" and "Microsoft design style".
The only way I could find the old version of that page (AFAIK) was to see the Google cached page: the cached past version of
Now, I don't know how much of a "proper source" Google cached pages are, but they do reliably show the textual content of a past version of a page, as it is all done by a crawler/bot.
It does very clearly show how that page was like before the Metro renaming and after the Metro renaming and you see clearly how they replaced the references to "Metro":
"Metro design style" --> "Microsoft design style".
"Metro design language" --> "Microsoft design language".
However, as mentioned above on this Talk page, that Google cached page will be updated soon. Right now (2012 09 23), you can still see the old Google cached version of that page, but it will soon be updated, so there was no point of including that as a reference. Hence, I uploaded a side-by-side comparison screenshot. I know it is far from ideal and is not a proper source, but I really don't know how else to show this "evidence". (Sorry, not that familiar with Wikipedia practices.)
What is your opinion on this, SudoGhost?
Niamer (talk) 02:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
That's kind of the reason it was removed, it's all speculation and the title of this section, "may be the new official name" sums it up well. It was Metro, then people came to the talk page swearing up and down the official name was Modern UI, then Modern, and a few other things. Every few days there was a new "official name". However, until we have a reliable source that says "this is an official name" then it's not. Until we have some reliable source that says "Microsoft rewording their pages is relevant in some way" then it's just speculation that this means anything. The Microsoft page is the primary source for, well, itself. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. We can't look at the page changing and conclude that "it means something" unless a secondary source says it. - SudoGhost 02:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I have to agree with SudoGhost. It seems a lot of enthusiasts simply get away with themselves and their own imaginations where there is no concrete proof of an organized movement towards one certain course of action. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
An update:
I found this, which was posted on October 2nd, 2012:
Windows 8: new name for Metro apps and associated design language
The author of the post, Laurent Duveau, is a "Microsoft Regional Director, Microsoft Certified Trainer and Microsoft MVP".
Does this (in addition to the MSDN pages mentioned above) constitute a reliable source? I mean, he is actually affiliated with Microsoft.
Meanwhile, as of right now, the article still talks about how the replacement name is "Modern UI" (which Microsoft does not appear to be using anywhere at all today), and the only source of that is that "The Register" article. Also, as a side note, for some reason, the reference to the "The Register" article is entitled "Microsoft officlally renaming Metro UI to Modern UI." even though the "The Register" article does not say anything about an "official renaming". I feel that this "Modern UI" claim is very misleading.
Thanks for your input.
Niamer (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

MS Program Manager Larry Lieberman is calling Metro for "Windows Phone Design System", or maybe he was really just referring to the specific implementation of Metro design on the Windows Phone, and not the Metro design language as a whole? Watch this Channel 9 video, from Oct. 4, at the 2-minute mark; UX Designer Jon Bell talks Common App Design Problems. Meewam (talk) 05:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Make great Windows Store apps (MSDN Subscriptions)". Retrieved 2012-09-18. 
  2. ^ "Make great Windows Store apps (MSDN Subscriptions) - Comparison of before and after". Retrieved 2012-09-18. 
  3. ^ "Make great Windows Store apps". Retrieved 2012-09-17. 
  4. ^ "Design case study: iPad to Windows Store app". Retrieved 2012-09-17. 
  5. ^ "Guidelines for typography". Retrieved 2012-09-17. 
  6. ^ "Roadmap for Windows Store apps using DirectX and C++". Retrieved 2012-09-17. 

Non neutral point of view for section "response"[edit]

The parts pretraining to Windows 8 usage is one sided and seems like complaining. I think one should add in more possitive stuff to it and reword it to make it less like complaining. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karjam (talkcontribs) 23:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, when I went on CNET to look up the article, I found out that the only citation was the only one where the zune is supposedly better than the iphone or ipod.
Maybe putting in a little more from the article would make it much less opinionate... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
This section needs a complete rewrite. I hate windows 8, but even I think this is ridiculously biased. Flynn58 (talk) 07:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 Resolved The biased text is deleted. I noticed that not only it was biased, it was unverifiable too, as its sources did not verify its assertions. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Resolved? It reads like a Microsoft press release! Did no one but Tim Cook and me dislike it or have complaints? (come on...100's of GFLOPS of graphics power to produce monochrome icons?) Even so, why weren't statements from Apple's CEO considered important enough to include? Apple's market cap is still 167% that of Microsoft's. Even without Jobs, they're an important voice in the computer world. (talk) 02:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello. If there are such voices, please supply a source per each. I'll be glad to include them. However, if you do not know any, then I am afraid allegations of bias based on pure assumptions are themselves biased assumptions. In addition, this article is about the design language, not anything else, including the performance problems of a certain device. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


Do you think that it is needed to tell readers some now call the UI as Modern UI or the microsioft design, etc. in the first paragraph of the article? I think that it would be better to do so by letting reader know it is being called with different name now, and also to redirect those name to the page. C933103 (talk) 09:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Final new name for metro[edit]

Windows design language. ElectroPro (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The article will probably remain as Metro because that is the name that everyone knows and recognizes it by. However, this should definitely be added, along with its reference, into the lead section. --GSK 23:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
How about adding a similar mention to the lead of Windows 8? Hcobb (talk) 15:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello. MOS:LEAD says lead should not contain novel information of its own. Besides, Microsoft has not locked on one single name. "Windows design language" and "Microsoft design language" are used sporadically as a replacement for Metro design language while "Metro apps" have such replacements as "Windows 8 apps", "Windows Store apps" and "Modern Apps". I say stick to the commonly used name ("metro") until Microsoft cleans up its own mess. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Metro name out of date[edit]

As mentioned in the article and talk page, Microsoft has stopped using the name Metro. Much of the discussion supporting keeping the metro name is from August 2012 when the change was originally announced. The name of the design language and article need to be updated. Several editors have attempted to be bold and do so, but these changes have been reverted due to Microsoft's apparent ambiguity on the subject. Until there is a clear consensus on the new name, I am marking the article as being out of date. (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

  • no Disagree
Hello. Unfortunately, your view of the subject seems flawed. The name is kept as "Metro" because, to put it bluntly, in Wikipedia, we don't care what Microsoft do or do not as much as we care about our policies. Our policy is WP:TITLE which says the article must use the title which is common. While Microsoft has stopped using Metro and has not started using a consistent non-ambiguous replacement, people outside Microsoft have consistently used "Metro".
Others have tried to change the article title before but failed because they valued their own point of view beyond our policy. But so long as the world as a whole is concerned, "Metro" is the name. Microsoft's consent hardly matters.
Best regards,
06:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Is it wikipedia's policy not to update information which has become out of date? Yes, people outside of Microsoft have (past tense) used the name Metro. Are most people still doing it now?
Lisa, please be careful that you are not asserting ownership of this article. (talk) 13:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Yes. The mainstream sources outside Wikipedia are still using the term Metro on recurrent basis unless when they want to discuss the name fiasco itself. Check InfoWorld, PC Magazine, PC World, Paul Thurrott's SuperSite for Windows and Rafael Rivera's Within Windows. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Metro UI name in lead section[edit]

I'm OK with the "more neutral description" edit. It's a big deal that the name is not Metro any longer, and should be in the lead to comply with MOS:INTRO. About the reasons for the change, it's true that Microsoft hasn't made an official stand, although there are enough sources supporting that MS doesn't have the legal right to use it - it was covered all over the place in Tech media last autumn. In fact, the article should be moved to the new name once Microsoft settles at the definitive one. "Microsoft design language" seems to be the correct name. Diego (talk) 05:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your consent with the description.
As for what the tech media say, I am not ready to bet that any of them have a degree in law. But yes, I agree that Microsoft should first settle on something before we make any move. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Metro (design language)[edit]

Moved from Talk:Diego Moya


Sorry if I am skipping the pleasantries; I have to be quick. It is about this edit.

First, reliable sources? The Register and BBC's Comp are not reliable sources. Please see WP:PUS.

Second, you say "press speculated", this sounds like speculation to me. Per WP:SPECULATION, we do not cover this kind of material.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

You must be kidding me. Have you read that policy beyond the shortcut? That the section is called "not speculation" doesn't mean that the word "speculation" is forbidden. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included. WP:SPECULATION means that Wikipedia editors can't include their own opinions for future events - it doesn't apply to sourced content nor past, confirmed events.
If your problem was with the reliability of the sources (but seriously, the BBC a tabloid?) you should have requested alternatives, instead of wiki-warring your way into a severely skewed version that tells just the "official" story. Do you consider The Verge reliable? Ars Technica?[3] The New York Times?[4] TechRadar? [5] CNET? [6] Engadget? [7] IDG's Network World? [8] Literally every tech news site was reporting about the name drop right after the announcement of legal problems. It's WP:OR for Wikipedia editors to connect the dots, not to report when all reliable sources are doing it. "Speculation" doesn't apply to the proven fact that "the interface formerly known as Metro" went for nearly a month without an official name. Diego (talk) 06:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, I must confess I did not expect such a furious reply but focusing on the reply itself, I find it to be strawman. The comments seem to be on my statements by their own merit not as a complementary talk page message meant to complement my edit summary. So, let's start from the beginning.
The first thing to note is: In spite of me having removed 1948 bytes worth of your contribution, the article still states that there was a trademark dispute between Metro AG and Microsoft. Now, this is what I reverted:

There was a period during which there wasn't a known public name to refer to the new interface style.

Source please... but don't bother; there was no such period.

A memo was sent out to developers and Microsoft employees to stop using the term "Metro" [...]

Millions of memos are being sent everyday to tell employees what to do and what not to do. Reporting this is undue. (My edit summary.)

[...]and the press speculated that this was related to the legal case

Which means they guessed without verifying it. They thought "well, there is a memo and there is a case; they must be connected." Their evidence for the "muse be" part? Nothing. The only verification attempt was asking Microsoft that says this was a codename and they planned to stop at some point anyway.
Now, you say they are not Wikipedian and they may write WP:SYNTH things. True. But (1) WP:SPECULATION says "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation" and (2) per WP:UNDUE, we only cover the points of view that matter. The official version is the only point of view that matters here because product naming is not consumers' right; it is an intellectual property of Microsoft. The merit for its existence is its owner saying "it is". All these journalistic coverages are nothing but making a mountain out of a molehill. This is WP:UNDUE. Even if literally every news source say that, we literally ignore all such sensational journalism.

On August 4, 2012, PC World reported Microsoft was temporarily referring to the design language as Windows 8 Style UI to fill the void.

Well, PC World is wrong; six sources in the next paragraph prove that. Should we cover everyone who was wrong?

Alexandra Chang of Wired suggested [...]

Suggested? Is this person a known expert on user interface design and development for us to write her suggestions? No. His suggestion has no more merit than my grandfather's.

On August 9, 2012, it emerged that Microsoft was planning to use the term "Windows 8" to replace Metro in consumer marketing materials. The Register reported that Microsoft was planning to use the term "Windows 8" to replace Metro in consumer marketing materials, and "Modern UI" was intended for developers.

No such thing happened; it is The Register's initial report as a result of of quickly jumping to conclusion, which, according to six sources in the next paragraph, is wrong. There is no evidence to prove the word "modern" or the phrase "modern UI" were anything beyond an adjective and a noun adjunct for advertising.
Finally, you are saying that I edit warred; perhaps you'd like to point out that since you reinstated something I removed, it was you who performed R of WP:BRD. In my defense, this diff shows that your contribution was such a dramatic departure from the original contents that it cannot be regarded a revert and thus warranted a fresh round of discussion based on BRD. I addition, an edit war is by definition non-collegial, but I did not and do not mean a personal offense. However, if I made any unintended inconveniences, I am sorry.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 19:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, and I wasn't expecting a second removal of the thing without discussion. I was hoping for "oh, I didn't notice there were so many reliable sources covering the subject, I understand now how it can be included". A man can dream.
There was a period during which there wasn't a known public name to refer to the new interface style. If we are to interpret policies so loosely as to support things they don't say, I could justify that sentence with WP:CALC - from August 2nd when Microsoft abandoned the Metro name to September 12th, when they used the "modern" term, there were about 40 days. Instead, you could use the sources I've provided above stating the same, reporting that Microsoft discontinued Metro and were "working on a replacement term" to be published "any time now". In any case that would only justify removing that single sentence, not the whole thing (which includes the connection with the legal problems, but it's more than it).
Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation Right, though that's for unverifiable speculation, i.e. the one made by Wikipedia editors. This one here is verifiable speculation, the kind that is made by reliable sources, and which is explicitly allowed by the policy you linked to. It's not up to us to decide what rumors are credible or not, we simply follow what those sources consider relevant. (Oh, and the "talks with an important European partner" is not a rumor nor speculation, it was verified by The Verge). There's no way to read WP:CRYSTALBALL as referring to other than future events not supported by sources; the policy simply never says a thing about events that occurred in the past. You can't twist policy to support a position for which it simply says nothing about.
When all the major news from the tech industry as well as some from the general press are reporting the existence of the memo and keep talking about it one year later, you can't simply remove it as WP:UNDUE; it matters because it has been so widely covered by RSs - all that credible sources, with editorial review processes are creating a "majority and significant" view that must be reported. In special when the article is covering the subject anyway, but only from the perspective of one of the involved parties, the software provider. If this was really undue weight, the whole section should be deleted, not only the part that casts Microsoft in a bad light; we have a duty by WP:NPOV to report both sides of the issue. Heck, there's enough material even to write a separate article about the naming issues detailing both Microsoft position and everything said by major news outlets, and quote it here per WP:SUMMARY; I might do just that in the future. Meanwhile, the section is clearly missing what all newspapers reported during a month denying the credibility of MS's official stance. Diego (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi. You seem to be under the impression that there is such a status of "reliable source" that once a publisher obtained it, that publisher can write whatever it wants and it is our duty to cover it. But there is a reason it is called "reliable source", not "reliable publisher". A reliable source per WP:RS, has three components: Author, publisher and contents. These three are decide based on our main goal of writing: to represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by on a topic.
In that light, what you have introduced are not divine reliable sources; they are journals. They write to earn money and have reputation for allocating zero priority to producing encyclopedic contents. Speculations of experts are "significant views" but speculations of journalists are not. Let's face it: this certain speculation is as probable as its opposite; only "Microsoft is lying!" is a far more catchier title than "Everything is normal".
As for the WP:CALC thing, you have written "there wasn't a known public name" and now you are saying Microsoft did not have a name. However, all you know is they stopped using a certain name. They might have had a name, only you didn't know one. Saying they did not have for sure needs a source.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 03:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
So this is your position in this? That you can ignore the editorial processes and expertise (yes, journals do have experts doing the reports) of the whole reporting industry whenever you don't like or trust the content they're reporting? We can test that theory and WP:RS/Noticeboard and see how well it flies. But first, I shall remind you one more time that the information on which these reports are based was also provided by Microsoft, so it's not "Microsoft is lying" as it is "Microsoft is contradicting itself there".
you have written "there wasn't a known public name" They might have had a name, only you didn't know one. Now I don't know if you're not writing at your full capacity, or just arguing for the sake of argument. The sentence you deleted, that they didn't have a public name, means that we didn't know about it, irregardless of whether Microsoft had one internal name all the time.
So, is there a way by which we can work together to fix the bias issue and not have the section be a Microsoft press release? Or there isn't anything in the whole month worth of news that you could find appropriate reporting about the issue? Diego (talk) 06:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
First, who told you "editorial process" is valuable in Wikipedia? It is peer review and oversight that is valuable.
Second, my issue is undue weight and bias which doesn't fit the bill for WP:RS/Noticeboard. In other words, the article is still saying the same thing; you simply added some details as to how the rumor started that dismissed as editorializing. You have long dropped the argument against which I used WP:RS; why you are still discussing the RS angle in beyond me.
Third, about your WP:CALC thing, let me put it straight: One of your sources is contradicting you; it says there was a name.
Last, yes, I know a perfect way of resolving this discussion: I revert the article back to a pre-discussion state, then we leave and come back no sooner than when we have clear state of mind with no presuppositions. Of course, you are more than welcome to start editing immediately or counter-revert. It doesn't matter to me: Wikipedia is not love and it is not about winning.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 19:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I unfortunately, agree with WP:SPECULATION here; there was no official confirmation from Microsoft that the Metro > Modern change was trademark related. It just changed. I would rather just dump the entire section (as I have just done now) and just whitewash the entire ordeal. Microsoft does not comment on rumors and speculation, and neither should we. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

NPOV dispute[edit]

There's this point of view by Microsoft that the original name "Metro" was always an internal code name for the project, never to be used by the world at large. There's this different point of view by every major news outlet that the early name was dropped because of "discussions with an important European partner". If you read the most essential content core policy about neutrality, it says that in cases like this we report both points of view. Now if there are doubts about the specific wording of some parts of the article as they represent what has been reported by sources, we can discuss them in detail and resolve this through dispute resolution. Diego (talk) 02:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

As for WP:SPECULATION, once again I have to remind you of its verbatim text: Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view. (emphasis mine). Since the disputed content deals with past and not a future event, a timeline with the facts about who said what when, should be enough to document how the knowledge about the style name change was reported during August 2012. Diego (talk) 02:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Would this operate under the same logic as why we have to call the Start screen a continuation of the Start menu because going by Microsoft's "claim" that the start menu was removed is non-neutral? ViperSnake151  Talk  04:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I'd reply "hardly". It has too much holes in it. IMHO, Diego is simply reading the WP:SPECULATION the way he likes it to sound. The experts mentioned in WP:SPECULATION in this context need to be distinguished experts in user interface, computing science, law and/or mind readers. Diego says those journals have "experts", which I am not going to believe, but even if they have, they are hardly distinguished and their point of view is hardly WP:DUE. Mind you, if they had expert, those articles would have credited them. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Excuse me? Why do you need an expert in computer science or user interfaces to comment on a name change of a product by a corporation? (And also, who says that the technical sources above don't have experts in computer science and user interfaces?) The technical websites reporting on this news are "recognized entities in the field". This was substantiated by a leaked inner document; to comment on that, you need experts in contrasting information with contacts in the source organization, i.e. journalists. We have two independent press websites pointing to the possible copyright dispute as the cause of the name change. If you have any specific claim by which these sources are not reliable other than "it's a rumor" (which the letter of policy says are allowed, no interpretation needed even if it was - although we have confirmation as text directly from the leaked memo), we can post them at WP:RS/Noticeboard and get wider feedback to settle the disagreement. Diego (talk) 06:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
WP:IDHT. This is a repetition of the same thing above and I am not going to repeat how and why I disagree with all of it. Written text can be re-read. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I've pretty much heard everything you have to say, it's just that I don't find anything actionable. This is what I take from what you wrote:
  • You're referencing a policy that doesn't support your position. Wikipedia does report well-supported rumors.
  • You're requesting unreasonable requirements for expertise, in areas not related with what has been reported.
  • Your explanation of why this would be undue weight is insufficient (also most of what you wrote at the Metro (design language) section above does no longer apply to the current version).
There are also some things I said that you have not acknowledged, like that there are more sources than just The Register and BBC, and that the discussions with a partner as the cause for the name change is not speculation but has been confirmed.
Still, we can discuss how to reduce the weight given in the article for the whole issue, as long as the description of the leaked memo and its independent confirmation by ZDNET are kept. Diego (talk) 06:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Hey, Diego. Glad to see you liked my edit. But in spite of that I can't help noticing that some of your discussions are not very accurate. First, you are effectively concluding that "Wikipedia does report well-supported rumors" resulted from your reading of the sentence in green. The problem is "speculation" has multiple meanings. The sentence in green clarifies that it is talking in the lines of "predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories". It applies to weather forecast, market forecast, impact speculation, growth projection, etc. WP:NOT is quite frank about the other meaning of speculation, "rumor": It is not allowed, period.
Second, it is not "by experts"; it is by "expert sources and recognized entities". Recognized entities are not just people like Edison, Tesla and Einstein; they are also people like Obama, Saddam Hussein and Stalin as well as organizations like Wall Street, UN and North Korean Exports Office. Not all of these have any expertise but they are very well recognized. Expert sources, however, are like CERN, Wall Street and NASA. They don't need to be that famous: Wolff Olins or AV-TEST are also good enough. Journalists are neither of these, unless you want an expert source on sensationalism. Rumors from none of these are allowed. Fleet Command (talk) 05:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Why does everybody keep referring to this as "rumor", when we have written confirmation from ã Microsoft document? Diego (talk) 05:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I don't even know what the word "rumor" refers to because I didn't read the whole novel. I only read your last message and couldn't help noticing texts in green across the board. You are obviously trying to justify putting rumors in the article. If there is no rumor, so help me, you shouldn't justify it in green. Fleet Command (talk) 07:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:FleetCommand
So, you're guessing what I'm "obviously" trying to do and telling me what I shouldn't do based on a conversation that you haven't read? Pardon me if I don't take your advice too seriously. Diego (talk) 08:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
"Guessing?" "Advice?" Kid, if all you can do is putting words in my mouth, I assure you, you can take this discussion to every single noticeboard in Wikipedia and no one will agree with you. You are a biased edit warrior who have violated existing consensus so far and falsified other people's statements. I was wrong to have assumed good faith in you. I am bailing out on this. Enjoy antagonizing a fourth editor. Fleet Command (talk) 02:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I have some ideas to reduce the total weight of the Name change section, by keeping it strictly to information originating from Microsoft. This would eliminate the mention of the German company (it originated from Microsoft insiders, but it was not in written form), thus keeping just brief sentences for the internal memo, MS describing "Metro" as a project codename, and the announcement of the final name one month later. As I don't feel this is needed, I want to know if this would be an acceptable compromise, before making the change. Diego (talk) 06:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

start menu[edit]

the talk about Start screen / Start menu should take in mind the evolution of it in Windows 10 (combined Win7 and Win8 Start concepts) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. This is too soon. Windows 10 is not yet out, we don't know how it would look like in the end and Wikipedia is not a news agency. So, all we can talk about is the breaking news about changes, not "evolution"! Patience is one of the virtues of an encyclopedia writer. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

What's in a name?[edit]

@FleetCommand, I'd appreciate that you WP:AGF and wouldn't attribute ulterior motives to my attempts to improve the article. The current intro sentence makes it look like "Metro" is an official name for the topic of this article, which is not. I'm trying to inform the readers that this code name has been officially discontinued, which is something that the current lead section doesn't do, yet it's highly relevant - given that Microsoft sources won't use that name in their documents. Also, "codename" is a problematic word to describe the name, as for Microsoft products it conveys the idea that it's used only during development, but as Codename Lisa pointed out it has been used after release.

I'd like to have a more neutral, WP:STICKTOSOURCE lead that acknowledge Microsoft position but also the history of the name change, per WP:POVNAMING. "Metro" is likely the WP:COMMONNAME and should be used for the article's title; but I think it would be better to have a first sentence that used the official name as the MOS:BOLDTITLE and then clarified why that's not how the product is more widely known (remember that the article title needs not to be included verbatim). This is my suggestion:

The Microsoft design language, also known as Metro and Modern UI, is a typography-based design language by Microsoft, primarily for user interfaces.ref A key design principle is better focus on the content of applications, relying more on typography and less on graphics ("content before chrome"). The "Metro" name was used in the initial promotional materials [include ref here], and it's still in wide use [citation needed], though it was soon discontinued by Microsoft because of trademark concerns.[ZDNET reference]

This sentence has the advantage that it defines the topic as a design language, not as a word, which is more consistent with WP:LEADSENTENCE.

Alternatively, we could switch the official and common name:

Metro, also known as the Microsoft design language and Modern UI, is...

Diego (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose, per your own cited policy.
Hello, Diego. The policy that you yourself cite (MOS:BOLDTITLE) says "If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence". You confess that it is, hence I don't see why you troubled yourself writing this peculiar suggestion. Also these proposals have serious WP:DUE problem. Almost everyone is using this term, even expanding over its meaning. Microsoft, on the other hand, is not using any name for it, as Alexandra Chang of Wired proposed. (I always thought she is carried away but never imagined to this extent.) They are saying "Windows Store app", "Microsoft design language" and "Windows 8 apps" but none of these refer exactly to the same entity. In addition, you are – unwittingly – trying to invent a problem that doesn't exist. To say that "Metro" is a codename is also saying that it is no longer used. Why; are you under the impression that codenames like "Longhorn" and "Orca" are thrown about galore and "Metro" is an exception? Overall, it appears that you are fussing about this article for nothing. You really need to move on.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
You oppose, what exactly? The second version that I suggested has Metro as the boldtitle, displayed as early as possible in the first sentence. So, I take that you don't think summarizing in the lead a major section of the article ("Name change") is something that should be done?
Also, "Almost everyone is using this term",[citation needed]. In my experience, almost everyone is avoiding to talk about the design language at all. But that is irrelevant; even assuming that everybody else uses Metro as the primary name (which I don't doubt, but still would require a reference to be used in the article) that's not a reason not to say that Microsoft is not one of them, nor to stop discussing improvements to the poorly structured lead section. Diego (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Opposing both. "Metro" isn't "Modern UI". You see the word "UI"? It means "Modern UI" is not a design language but rather a user interface. The former is a code for creating the latter. (In fact, to my extent of knowledge, Microsoft used "Modern apps", never "Modern UI". It is the invention of the mainstream media to refer to Start Screen, toast notifications, Settings and the charms. c.f. [9] and [10])
I don't think the lead is poor; I think until two days ago, it was perfect. In fact, the only thing imperfect about this article is covering that allegation of trademark conflict, which is overcovered and is patently false. Microsoft can trademark "metro" in spite of the existence of Metro AG and Metro Inc. because trademarks are domain-bound; i.e. those companies don't have a computing trademark but a food sale trademark. (You know, there are already three "Apple" trademarks: Apple Inc., Apple Corps and Apple Leisure Group.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Allowing Modern because of usage[edit]

I'm coming here from WP:Articles for deletion/Modern UI, which resulted in a redirect to this article. The problem was that Modern UI was not mentioned in this article. So I added it, and was reverted. Before adding it, I was aware of the stout resistance on this page to including Modern UI in the article, and was reluctant to get involved. But since Modern UI is now commonly used to refer to Microsoft's new UI, we need a home for it somewhere. So here we are.

As I see it, Metro was the original development name. Developers and journalists got used to it. So there is no problem with keeping Metro as the title of this article. However, when the time came to introduce the new UI to the world, Microsoft decided that they needed a different name. They went through several alternatives, including Microsoft design language, Windows 8 UI, modern UI, and modern design language. Note the small m. They were trying to get away with having no official name. But the world wanted an official name, and it wanted it to be a proper noun. Hence, currently, the name Modern UI with a capital M has won out.

Looking at discussions between users and developers at, you often see both mentioned at once, like Modern (Metro) UI, modern metro UI, or Metro/Modern UI. But by now Modern UI all by itself is has become quite common, both inside and outside Microsoft. I think it would be tedious to give a long list of examples, but for example [11] [12] [13]. So we should have it in the article somewhere.

Since the example of the Microsoft VP was reverted because of the small m, I'd like to suggest another source: Samidip Basu (2013). Real World Windows 8 Development. Apress. ISBN 9781430250258.  by a programmer and Microsoft MVP. Note the capital M in "Modern UI design language". This should be enough to indicate that the usage exists. I'd also like to suggest that we put the questions of what the "official name" is and what the "most common name" is to one side and just go with "examples exist so we will acknowledge them". Also that the scope of the article should include the UI itself along with the design language (set of design principles) used to produce it.

Anyway, if there are no objections, I am planning to add "Modern UI design language" with the above source, because we have a redirect "Modern UI" coming here and we need to mention it in the article. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

There are multiple international media using the term "Modern UI", not just Microsoft. ([14], [15], [16], [17]) If "Metro" is included because its usage despite not being an official name, it makes sense to mention this other term as well. Diego (talk) 08:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Those are all examples of the UI. I have no problem with "Microsoft design language", since there is evidence that Microsoft wants to call it that. But "Microsoft UI" doesn't work because it's not specific enough. Every Microsoft product has a UI. Developers and users needed a name for this one. That's why it got the code name Metro, to refer specifically to the one with the tiles. Then Metro was out and people started to use Modern. And they also started to use "Modern UI design language", unofficially. I don't think we need to make a big deal of this or change other parts of the article. Just mention it somewhere as a term that people do use. – Margin1522 (talk) 09:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Every Microsoft product has a UI The topic is the user interface for products designed for Windows 8, which use a specific style, not all products. "Modern UI" is a term used for those interfaces that go with that design language; reliable sources are using both meanings interchangeably, and there are not enough references to split the topic into two separate articles, one for the design language and another for the interfaces built with it.
See also Google Trends (also this). "Metro" is definitely more common, but it peaked around nov. 2012 and has been in steady decline, and usage of "Modern UI" is now comparable, if smaller. Diego (talk) 09:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I decided to add another phrase to your trends: "Windows Store app". [18]. Actually, instead of me telling what I see, why don't you tell me what you see? But anyway, I don't think you can deny that the period of factually inaccurate hoopla that media love, is over. Fleet Command (talk) 08:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I see that "Windows Store app" is another likely term for referring to this interface style and its associated technology, which should likely be added to the lede too. Not only that, it weakens the case for using "Metro" as the article name. If it's not the official name, and it's not the most used term, what is the basis for using it as the WP:COMMONNAME? It seems that calling it "Metro" was a common thing around November 2012 when it was announced, but more recently people has abandoned it as "the" way to name this design style. Maybe it's time to move the article to Windows Store app (design language)? Diego (talk) 09:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Two things about that. One is that before worrying about the lead we should finish the discussion of naming in the body of the article. The place to do that would be the "Name change" section? Currently we have a lot of sources speculating on what would replace Metro. Now, in retrospect, we know. Second, we should keep the design language separate from what is produced with the design language (the UI). IMO "Metro design language" is fine as the article title. It's the historical name that everyone knew. If anything, "Microsoft design language" would seem to be the strongest candidate to replace it. But this is different from all of the different official and unofficial names for the UI that users see, which tend to be tied to the products -- Zune UI, Windows Store apps, etc. – Margin1522 (talk) 13:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
But does it really make sense to keep the design and products separate? I haven't seen compelling evidence that reliable sources make such distinction consistently, nor that they use different names when referring to the technology vs the design language. I agree that, if we decide to distinguish them, "Microsoft design language" would be the preferred name, being the official one and given the problems with settling to a single "popular name"; although that suggestion seems to be met with strong opposition here.
What we need is a recent, third party reliable source which discussing the naming issues in retrospective, and adopt their criteria. Barring that, at least the article should not imply that that "Metro" is still the preferred name, as it was popular mainly in a brief period around 2012, but its usage has been in steady decline and the unofficial UI names have taken its place. Diego (talk) 13:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Actually, FleetCommand's link has a problem. It must have been looked for "Windows Store app" all together. Try it and you see a muchh lower peak. But, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; that means a history book too. So, the whole use spectrum is important, not the most recent.
Also, "Modern UI" is not used by Microsoft itself. I tried Googling "Modern UI" and the only result comes from the user contribution area. (Well, you can't stop Microsoft users from calling it "Modern UI", can you?) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

"Windows apps"[edit]

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)

@Diego Moya:
'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.
Please don't re-instate your unsupported assertions one more time without direct support. Per WP:BURDEN, the onus is on you to find references for the disputed content that explicitly say what you want to include, without requiring unverifiable inferences. Diego (talk) 13:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

It was to discourage your from further edit warring. You clearly change the disputed part of the article to your own favor without letting a full round of forth-and-back conversation to happen and it is clear that no consensus is established.
Now, are you requesting a third opinion from me?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Engaging in edit warring is a curious way to prevent edit warring. "Full rounds of forth-and-back conversation" are not a requirement to reach WP:EDITCONSENSUS, so that's a strange request to make as well, and it's actually against policy if you don't have any concern against the content itself. So I'll ask it explicitly, do you have references that support the unverifiable content you reintroduced with your revert? Diego (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Now that you explicitly ask for my opinion (even though I gave you the option of asking just anyone's), here it is:
  1. I have checked Fleet Command's sources. They indeed verify his claim. You yourself confessed as much above: "Ok, it appears somewhere in the article, as a minor point in a slide". Yet you contradicted yourself a two minutes later with a revert summary that reads: "Clarify and remove unverifiable assertions". In the same revision, once again, you claimed the "term 'Windows apps' used to describe apps based on the [[Windows Runtime]] portable to all devices supporting the platform". It seems to me that no matter what the source says, all you care is to write what you think is correct.
  2. The reminder of your objections to Fleet Command are also in vain: "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". And as long as the source explicitly talks about such a name as "Universal app" having been in use, your objection the phrase "through 2015" may only be treated with the removal the unverifiable time clause, not the removal of the verifiable object.
"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.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't see how you are willing to work as a team. So if I tweak the content, I'm edit warring, but if you simply revert in full to a version you agree requires changes, you're not edit warring, because according to you I am "dishonest" and unwilling to work towards a consensus? is that what you just said??
Yet you contradicted yourself a two minutes later If 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 clause If 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?
I did remove the "unverifiable time clause", and you reintroduced it! I made the changes that I think better explain the subject, with the intention to let readers understand the reasons why Microsoft made the latest, as explained in the reference articles; don't blame me for not making your preferred edits in the first place, I had no way to know what you would deem acceptable before you explained it! (Oh, and of course I care about writing a correct article, you say that as if it was a bad thing??)
I have now added your suggested changes to see how they roll, and in my view the result is an unreadable mess that doesn't properly explain what it's talking about nor why it's in there; and yet I have left it in place as the less contested version. Any improvement would be welcome that actually rendered the section readable again . Diego (talk) 05:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
@Diego Moya: Hello. Today is a charming day and I am a particularly good mood.
As you can see, I've requested the article to be locked down pending dispute resolution and my request has been accepted. Furthermore, I am not going to engage in any further side discussions. The bottom line is: There are three people in this discussion and all three have admitted that the verifiability indeed does not fail. All that is left to write a better version that addresses the remaining issues like "once" instead of "when". I'll drop Fleet Command a email and ask him to drop by.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
@Codename Lisa: I really don't care about the wording. My dispute with Diego was over the verifiability. All three of us are saying the source checks.
@Diego Moya: "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)
I never said in the article that desktop apps can't use the runtime. I referenced the source articles stating that access to the (full) Win32 API, which Microsoft wants to deprecate, is the difference between the two application styles. The key is whether the technology can support legacy applications or not, which is a major reason why people keep choosing Windows.
That one is a point I think should appear in the article. The other important one is that news sources think this is a deliberate rebranding by MS, intended to impulsate their new portable infrastructure. My two wordings included all these. What are the points that you want to keep from the sources in the article about these names? Diego (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
This is from revision 654168654:

Applications created with the Windows Runtime were later called "Universal apps".

It implies that traditional programs (which can use Windows Runtime) can be Universal apps too, which is incorrect.
Revision 655183873 doesn't have this problem. But "Universal app" does not appear in it.
This is also another mistake, but was hesitant to speak about it because of this dispute.
Fleet Command (talk) 08:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
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)
What are you talking about? Fleet Command (talk) 08:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Do you agree to use the following wording for the whole sentence?

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".

Diego (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't. It has the same old problems:
1. "Universal app" mention is absent again.
2. "Supporting the platform" lacks a prior platform definition. The only platform mentioned is "Windows Runtime" itself, which is also correct about traditional programs. (i.e. they can use Windows Runtime and they can be portable too.)
3. A name change in 2015 did not occur at all. Some guy used the term "Windows apps"; that's all. Microsoft has been using this phrase and other different combinations since 2012: "Windows apps", "apps for Windows", "apps from Windows Store" or just "apps".[19]
I am thinking it is better to drop the whole paragraph.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 04:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
1. "Universal app" was present in this version ("Applications created with the Windows Runtime were later called "Universal apps"), but then FleetCommand changed the sentence to say that it was renamed that way in 2015, which is not true.
2. The fix is as simple as saying "Microsoft's universal runtime platform" instead of "the platform".
3. Maybe there was no new name, but all sources coincide that there was a new branding effort pushing that name. We go with how the references describe things around here, right?
4. We could as well delete the whole article, but we don't do that because we write about subjects covered by reliable sources, such as that naming clarification by Microsoft that ran in all kind of news media.
So, after those tweaks we have this new version:

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.

The latest clause could be changed as well to "Win32-based executables running on the Windows desktop" to be more precise.
If there's something you don't like in this sentence, I suggest you contribute an alternate wording, in order to advance consensus-building, rather than merely stating what you don't like without providing improvements.
Diego (talk) 10:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
No dear. You were supposed to settle the remaining minor wording problem like "when" and "take advantage of", not to forget about the article title, the tags that you put there and continue an ad nauseam argument about "Windows Runtime". But I think it is quite natural that you forget about the tags; after all, you put them there to harass me, didn't you?
Somewhat irritated,
Codename Lisa (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
You think all this revolves around you? The sentence doesn't have a minor wording problem, it has the huge handicap that it is unintelligible to anyone who hasn't read the linked articles. Me using your proposed wording was but a temporary measure to have you stop reverting it into something that violates core verifiability policy as you repeatedly did, not a definitive solution in any way. If you're not willing to work towards a consensual wording that includes those important points I mentioned, we'll have to escalate the dispute and find external input. Diego (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, it all revolves around you. You are willing to work toward us accepting your view, not towards a consensus. I see that you have repeated your old verifiability lie again. I warned you. No. I am unwilling to work with liars. Good day, sir.
Codename Lisa (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
If you think it's verifiable that "Universal apps" is a new name that appeared "through 2015", surely you'll have no problem showing us the source that supports the assertion "The name changes in this area continue through 2015, with new names such as "Universal apps""? Diego (talk) 11:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Summarizing this[edit]

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 Reverted to #6
8 654599191-next Fleet Command Reverted to #2
9 654651230-next 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)

Thanks for the analysis, I'm glad that you have started analyzing content. In fact this is the first time that you have stated any specific concern with the content I introduced since the discussion about the new paragraph started*, except for the cryptic "You and CL are reading it wrong: The classification is "app" vs. "desktop application" which I didn't understood and to which you replied with "What are you talking about?" when I requested clarification.
So now that we finally I know about some of your concerns with the content, let's discuss:
A) I have no problem with adding the term "Universal app", in fact I have kept it in many of my edits. The problem was with the claim that it was a name change happening in 2015, a claim that as of today is still unverified, but which you and Codename Lisa reintroduced each time you reverted me or the IP user.
B) Who has decided that "The name changes in this area continue through 2015" is verifiable? Certainly not me. I've already explained how there's a single name change supported by the references as taking place in 2015, so the plural (i.e. several changes) is not verified by them. The second {{fv}} is not placed on "Windows apps" but on "once", a word that doesn't appear in any of the references, and that may be interpreted as the unverifiable "exactly once".
C) This is the first time you have complained about the meaning I've used for "Windows apps". This term is defined in the sources as "non-Win32 apps", a synonymous with "universal apps" or "WinRT apps" runing on PCs, Phones and Tablets, as apps built on the Windows universal app platform, and as applications based on Windows Runtime. Both Ars Technica and i-programmer say that this is the same thing that was called Metro apps; so I didn't invent anything. I believe all my edits are coherent with those definitions given by reliable sources, but if you think some of my wordings using that term were not supported by what the sources say, please let me know exactly how I'm wrong , so that I'll avoid introducing such misconception in the future.
D) As per "which were also to take advantage of Windows Runtime", I explicitly accepted it as verifiable here (I had earlier missed the text "Can access WinRT ... APIs" in the slide at Ars Technica), but I still can't ascertain why you think it's relevant to the article nor why whatever it explains is important to readers of this article. Care to elaborate? Diego (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
P.S. * Sorry, you also had stated that "Applications created with the Windows Runtime were later called "Universal apps"" was inexact. Diego (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Move to Microsoft Design Language[edit]

@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)