Talk:Metro (design language)

"Windows apps"

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 Unless you are suggesting that sources are wildly outdated, that means Microsoft changed the name in 2015 too.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 Unless you are suggesting that sources are wildly outdated, that means Microsoft changed the name in 2015 too.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.

Extended content
This sentence is also wrong: In March 2015 Microsoft rebranded them as "Windows apps", in contrast with "Windows desktop applications" used for Win32 applications. You and CL are reading it wrong: The classification is "app" vs. "desktop application".

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".[1]

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

Here is a summary of the problems with each diff:

1	652804539—653717560	Diego Moya	Introduced the disputed region. Problems: It introduces "Windows apps" term, not as a new name for "Metro-style apps", but as a something whose definition that may or may not overlap with Metro-style apps.
2	653717560–next	Codename Lisa	Three improvements: (a) "Universal app" terms is added as a synonym of "Metro-style app". (b) "Windows app" is made a synonym of Metro-style app. (c) Clarified that Windows Runtime cannot be taken as a distinguishing measure. Problems: (d) It used the word "once" instead of "when". (e) It used "take advantage of", which I don't think is a problem. (f) It used "continue through", which should be replaced with a time clause that indicated between 2012 to 2015.
3	653924393-next	Diego Moya	Introduced three problems: (a) It redefined "Windows app" as the same thing in #1; the redefinition is the problem because "Metro-style app" is already well-defined. (b) It made "Universal app" a synonym of the same thing. (c) It alleged that traditional apps cannot access Windows Runtime. It claimed that (d) improvements in #2 are not verifiable by the sources given.
4	654168654-next	Fleet Command	Reviewed #3. Discovered that 3a through 3c are not verifiable and the 3d claim is incorrect. Hence, it is a blanket revert. Sent this message to Diego: Special:Diff/654193269/654359967
5	654358652-654468949	Diego Moya	Edit summary reads: Double checked the sources, they definitely don't say "name changes in this area continue through 2015" nor "once used" - that's [[WP:SYNTH]. "Universal apps" in particular goes as far as 2012. But in reality, this edit is a blanket revert to #3 state that adds "once{{fv}}" and "which were also to take advantage of Windows Runtime.{{fv}}". So, basically it has the sum of all the problems of #2 and #3 and some misplaced irrelevant {{fv}} tags too.
One minor edit and one bot edit ignored
6	654471039-next	Fleet Command	Reverted to #2.
7	654507478-next	173.53.57.63	Reverted to #6
8	654599191-next	Fleet Command	Reverted to #2
9	654651230-next	173.53.57.63	Reverted to #6
10	654695052-next	Codename Lisa	Reverted to #2
One edit by Dewritech here
11	654810878-655185257	Diego Moya	A brand-new edit, but in the same line as #3. (a) It drops "Universal app". (b) Redefines "Windows apps" term, not as a new name for "Metro-style apps", but as a something whose definition that may or may not overlap with Metro-style apps. (Going back to square one.) (c) Calls "Windows app" a rebranding, causing a cascading contradiction. In effect, "Metro-style app", "Windows 8 app" and "Windows Store app" are redefined by removing Metro compliance requirement. (d) It puts an {{undue-inline}} in front of "which were also to take advantage of Windows Runtime", apparently accepting it is verifiable; see reply on 14:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC) (e) A new ambiguous "supporting the platform" is added. The resulting text is a jungle of contradictions.
12	655187736-next	Codename Lisa	Reverted changes in #11
13	655188527-655191457	Diego Moya	Tagged the problem area with {{fv}} and {{undue-inline}}. However, one of the {{fv}} tag is placed in front of clause that we decided didn't fail verification. Another is placed in front of ' and "Windows apps"', which Diego himself has written.

Fleet Command (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

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

@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)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Windows10abstract.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Windows10abstract.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 9 May 2023

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved (non-admin closure) ExtorcDev (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

---

Metro (design language) → Microsoft Design Language – I think it's been called Microsoft Design Language since 2012, but for some reason nobody has taken the time to move this article? Wow, and somehow Microsoft Design Language doesn't even redirect here... Also, this Talk page should probably be archived by a bot, because it's too long. 2001:1C06:19CA:D600:48FD:7584:CFA8:F952 (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. >>> Extorc.talk 17:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 18:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose move per WP:COMMONNAME, but I do think adding the redirect would benefit the article. An admin should be along to set up auto-archiving soon. --DL6443 (^Talk/_Contribs) 08:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and if the redirect is added I also suggest a hatnote to indicate the current design language used by Microsoft. --DL6443 (^Talk/_Contribs) 08:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Where is the source that it's called MDL? This article calls it "Fluent" design language. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Never mind, I realized that Fluent is its own article. In any case, Oppose move per WP:COMMONNAME, as this design language will be known mainly as Metro despite the change. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:11, 23 May 2023 (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.