Talk:Microsoft account

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Microsoft  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Websites / Computing   
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Site Synopsis Maintenance[edit]

Since we know for a certainty that this mechanism will continue to change, the start of this site should indicate the date of the most recent (periodic) update or review, and a synopsis of the current state of affairs for new users. IE:

2013 Nov: "Microsoft account" uses Open ID service to collect limited personal information about you & allow you to more easily browse to your accounts at sites that are setup to allow such re-directed "sign-in" without typing in your UID & Pw. You will still have to maintain an alternative mechanism or procedure for the many account sites which use an alternative service, or none at all.

--Wikidity (talk) 05:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Citation 1 False?=[edit]

I believe that this is false, because Microsoft Wallet was a facility for storing financial data, and I think this article is in need of clea up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Addresses?[edit]

This page doesn't say anything about the email addresses. I don't know enough but i think you can't get email addresses anymore. Does anybody know and can you write a little section about them?

I believe they only come in either or email addresses... but now it seems to have been changed to either,, or (I checked the registration page)--ZigZagZoug (talk) 02:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Wrong stub category?[edit]

Why is this page in the Windows stubs category? The Microsoft Passport Network isn't part of Windows, and can be used from any web browser.

Windows XP (still supported as of 2013 Nov.) directs users to '.NET Passport' for this function with their typically laconic and snobbish disdain for problems & details. If such users wrestle their way to this topic, they should receive a clear & candid description, or a simple link to one.
--Wikidity (talk) 05:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

'See also' links?[edit]

Why are there links to Liberty Alliance and OASIS? They don't seem relevant. Lambyuk 00:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I use Macs. Why would I want this?


The name of the network is still Passport Network, only the login service has changed name to Windows Live ID, as of - "The Passport Network works with Windows Live ID." 1() 04:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Passport Network is a network and Live ID is a user account used to sign on to the Passport Network. Two very different things. There is no such thing called "Windows Live ID Network" yet. COstop 22:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Passport was a milestone product in many ways: it caused the Liberty Alliance to be created, and a meaningful discussion to emerge about what was and wasn't desirable in a digital identity system. I would recommend to not redirect this page to the repositioned Live ID page because it essentially removes the "milestone" of Passport from the record. Many people still talk about Passport (admittedly mostly negatively), in spite of it not really being around any more. There is an entry on Visicalc, too, and that isn't around any more either. 22:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


Anyone get the feeling that all these artcles about Microsoft products lack reviews and criticism? Why hasn't anyone metioned why Ebay and Paypal stoped using Microsoft Passport?--Bushido Hacks 23:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Complaining about what other editors haven't done doesn't help the project. More often than not, such information is missing only because nobody's bothered to write it yet. So please, by all means, be bold and add in information you feel is important and relevant to the subject! Any help you can offer in improving the article would be most welcome. Just remember that information like what you're proposing needs cited sources. Warrens 00:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment about Security Issues[edit]

Since the emails to be used with passport is only MS controled email operations, The problem with reused email addresses can be easily addressed by a notification of the reuse of email addresses from the MS controlled email operation to MS passport service. Whether they currently do that I don't know, but I guess they do since the issue is so well known.

When you mention a seucirty issue, you need to say whether the security issues are already fixed or not.

Passport can be used with non ms controlled email addresses too............. Plugwash (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate Information[edit]

The security issues mentioned in this article seem to be solved, at least to some degree. For instance, it now appears that it is acatually possible to change the primary email address of an account, thus invalidating the problem of switching ISP.

What do you mean "it now appears"? How about some info on how to do it instead of speculation??

FTC Consent Order[edit]

The FTC Consent Order should be documented in this article somewhere. I'm avoiding doing that because of a WP:COI. --mariusstrom 04:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Linking Windows-ID's[edit]

Anyone know much about this ... it would be useful if there was something on the main page. I would like to do it but not very keen to use my two accounts as a guinea-pig!

  • Is there any unexpected problems like 'merging' of the two accounts that can not be separated again ...?
  • Problems of getting an email into one account a replying with the other by accident etc ... i.e. I use one account for work/jobs and the other socially.
  • I'd like to be able to check MSN groups, email etc with a single login but be able to reply to messages from each account separately.

Any help wiki-help out there? -- (talk) 00:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

No, "linking" just means that you only need to type in your username/password once and you can switch between all your accounts through the menu on the top-right hand corner of Windows Live services without having to type it again. So the accounts are not "merged" and hence is able to be "unlinked". Hotmail allows you specify which email address you wish to use to send an email from when composing an email, you just have to make sure you selected the correct address you wish to be sending your email from. Hope this answers your question. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 03:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Windows Live ID is not a website[edit]

A few things:

  1. It should be noted that Windows Live ID is not a web-"site". It is a web authentication service. As such, the "website" infobox template is not the appropriate template for this article.
  2. The screenshot should also depict the actual authentication service, not the (outdated) website that describes what Windows Live ID is. An analogy would be putting in a screenshot that describes what Hotmail is instead of putting a screenshot of Hotmail itself - it gives no benefit to the readers.
  3. Further, the link is an outdated website, as seen by its frequent reference to "MSN Hotmail" and "MSN Messenger", and should not be treated as the URL link in the infobox as that would refer to readers to outdated information. It is probably more appropriate to direct users to for information about Windows Live ID, or simply for the Windows Live ID sign-in page.

--Damaster98 (talk) 09:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Aha! So, you decided to stop hitting the revert button and begin discussing. That's good. ;)
  1. I never said it is a website. But that has no bearing on my use of the name of infobox template, a Wikipedia matter. If Infobox Cornellia Fitzgerhalt proves suitable, I use that too. {{Infobox website}} however, is more suitable here because it can reveal the fact the service requires registration (companies register with the service) and announce its slogan. {{Infobox software}} does none of those.
  2. The screenshot of depicts Microsoft login webpage -- and only the on that pertains to Windows Live. Other websites like have different login pages. Wikipedia is not Microsoft.
  3. The only thing outdated in that website is its URL and decoration. The contents is up to date. If you don't like the decoration or URL, then that's your problem. The fact is that is the main portal that provides all three single sign-on services and serves as a portal to all Windows Live ID services. That fits the bill for the main page. is not better than
Fleet Command (talk) 09:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
First of all, I have provided reasoning in by first revert's edit comment, however you did not provide any reason/discussion as to why you changed the infobox in the first place, as well as your subsequent revert of my edits - look who's talking. :) Now that we got that clear, let's move on:
  1. I'm not gonna make a big deal out of this, so use {{Infobox website}} as you like, as long as it shows sufficient information to the readers. Also as an additional thing, I have no idea where you got that slogan from, please source that.
  2. You're absolutely correct, the screenshot of does depict a Microsoft login webpage. Windows Live ID is a Microsoft product, of course it's going to show a Microsoft login webpage, what did you expect? And what does have to do with this? As far as I can see, uses Adobe ID, and has nothing to do with Windows Live ID. Additionally, where is your source that says "Adobe Systems and Hoyts" are using Windows Live ID?
  3.'s information is vastly outdated. Other than its URL and look (which I was never concerned about and never used that as a reason in my point above), it refers to non-existent services such as "MSN Hotmail" and "MSN Messenger" which had been renamed almost 4-5 years ago. In addition, I don't know where you got the information about "Limited Account" from because visiting your source on, the link that says "Learn more about limited accounts" now takes you to which mentions nothing about "Limited Account". Further suggests that this is outdated information.

    I think you should also realise that the Windows Live ID SDK has been deprecated and is now replaced by Windows Live Messenger Connect (source: [1]. For third party websites that wants to use Windows Live ID as their authentication/login, their users will be taken to a Microsoft-hosted Windows Live ID sign-in page to connect their account. This Microsoft-hosted Windows Live ID sign-in page is almost identical to (perhaps with a different branding text on the left bar), but this sign-in page is what truly identifies Windows Live ID. This visual identity also make it clear for users to know that the authentication is provided by Microsoft and not some scamming website. Hence the original screenshot depicts a more accurate image of what Windows Live ID is - not a screenshot of an outdated description page.
The abovementioned areas are currently reverted to how they were before you edited them. I'm grateful for your other contributions to this article. However, please refrain from editing the abovementioned areas before consensus is reached here. --Damaster98 (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
  1. Okay, then I put the infobox back. Look at the screenshot and you see where I have got the slogan from. ;)
  2. and, like many Microsoft services, uses Windows Live ID, hence its login screen. Also Microsoft itself has multiple login screens. (See or But that was not my point. The point is that you are showing a only one of the multiple login screens instead of the main service website, simply because you don't like it.
  3. What?! I am using Hotmail and Messenger right now! Good luck telling me they don't exist! You are using this as an evidence that the website is vastly outdated? Good luck again, but I also never read anywhere that "if a page is outdated, then it is not the main page!" In fact, according to Wikipedia:NPOV, we must not hide the outdatedness, so that people can see for themselves what Windows Live ID looks like: Not properly attended. If something is falling apart, there is no reason to show it as healthy, hiding the rot behind a healthy looking login screen.
  4. If you take a passing look at, you'll find out where I got the info. I successfully subscribed to a limited account. (I also provided a reference and a footnote, so you must have seriously overlooked.)
  5. Windows Live ID Web Authentication SDK is deprecated? So, what? We were talking about the reversal of the infobox and screenshot. If this is another reason to compel me to hide the "outdatedness", then nice try!
Fleet Command (talk) 06:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Fleet Command, both services have received a name update (they are now known as Windows Live Hotmail and Windows Live Messenger). - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 07:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I know that. I did mention that I am USING them now. Fleet Command (talk) 14:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
But Damaster98 called them "non-existent". Wow! Fleet Command (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
  1. Okay. Settled on this one.
  2. Where on or uses Windows Live ID? I went to both websites today and by going to "sign in" on both websites all I see is the websites asking me to login via Adobe ID, and has nothing to do with Windows Live ID. You need to prove it with a reliable source. Second, nothing I said has to do with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. My point has always been that the screenshot in the infobox should be showing the actual service (whether that be a screenshot of or the login screen on, but it should NOT be a screenshot of an (outdated) page that describes what the service is. You're completely missing the point.
  3. "MSN Hotmail" and "MSN Messenger" no longer exist, and you cannot be possibly still using them. The products/services that exist now is "Windows Live Hotmail" and "Windows Live Messenger", and it has been rebranded since 2006/2007, which is 4-5 years ago. If that is not "vastly outdated" I don't know what is. I have never suggested "hiding" outdated information, but editors have the responsibility to check that the facts they source from are still current and correct. Your edits in this article is treating these outdated information as if they're still correct as at this moment. The edits should at least recognise that they're what it used to be in the past so readers do not confuse that with what it currently is.
  4. As I mentioned before, (also the source #9 your provided in the article) contains outdated information. Specifically regarding "Limited account", clicking on "Learn more about limited accounts" on brings you to a page which mentions nothing about Limited Accounts. However, I also just successfully registered for a Windows Live ID using the "Get started now" link on, but the account is not any different than any other "Hotmail ID" (a term that you made up yourself as I don't see it in the source given. I can still use account to sent/receive emails in Hotmail, and it essentially is just another email address. This is contradictory to what your source (#9) says about Limited Accounts - "If you don't want to use an email account to access Windows Live ID, you can sign up for a limited account." There is nothing "limited" about such account. It might be the case once upon a time, but certainly it is no longer the case, which further shows that the information on (and in source #9) is outdated. Your edits in the article certainly reads like as if they are still current.
  5. No one is trying to hide anything. But an article on Wikipedia should reflect what is old information and what is current. If something is clearly outdated, the article should say so, and updated with what is accurate and current. Presenting outdated information as if they are current is clearly not the way to go. I am adding an {{Update}} template to the relevant section.
--Damaster98 (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
  2. Go to or and click sign in; supply your existing Windows Live ID credentials. That's all.
  3. "Your edits in this article is treating these outdated information as if they're still correct as at this moment." I just added a screenshot of and its URL to the article. Vastly outdated or not, is the homepage for Windows Live ID service. As for mentioning their being outdated: You never proposed it and I never contested it. (But perhaps I'd do when you did.)
  4. "As I mentioned before, (also the source #9 your provided in the article) contains outdated information". Where is your reliable source? Your original research don't count. "Your edits in the article certainly reads like as if they are still current." Nonsense. I was especially careful to cite the source only.
  5. What is the point in doing so when you and I are discussing it? bludgeoning the process, are we?
Fleet Command (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
  1.  :)
  2. I just visited both or, all it asks me for is Adobe ID, no mentions of Windows Live ID whatsoever. Where is your reliable source in this one? I don't think your original research count here.
  3. is not the homepage for Windows Live ID where readers can find current and accurate information about Windows Live ID. As I first mentioned, the "homepage" should be either, or perhaps which allow readers to find more current and accurate information about Windows Live ID.
  4. Here is a reliable source that shows the two types of Windows Live IDs people can create (updated May 14 2011): . Nothing in there mentions "Limited ID", which you sourced from an outdated website (, which still contains info from 2007). Hence I still stand by my comment that "your edits in the article certainly reads like as if [these outdated information] are still current." I'm simply applying some common sense here.
  5. What I did has nothing to do with WP:BLUDGEON, which is defined as "attempts to force their point of view by sheer volume of comments or repetition of an activity beyond the limits of good faith." All I did was adding the {{Update}} template, so that readers who are currently reading the article understands that what they're reading may be outdated (and they are referred to this discussion, should they require more information). What happened to assuming good faith?
--Damaster98 (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Alright, let's wrap this up. It doesn't do if we play tug of the war for eternity. I can keep saying " is and has always been the home page even if it is outdated" and you can keep refusing for whatever reason you like. So, there is two things we can do: (1)Wait a bit: I called a third opinion on this matter. It should come in soon. (2) Reach consensus over a third alternative that satisfies both: We can insert all three URLs in the article but remove all URLs from the infobox. Alternatively, we can insert all there links in the infobox but I really wish to keep this one as a last resort. Remember that features something that none of the other URLs do: Allows a user to create an account.
By the way, you say original research? No, because I have source for it! However, I have decided to drop that line because (1) re-checking my source, Adobe has dumped login (I can still login because I am their "valued customer" or something to that effect.) (2) It was just an example anyway to deliver a point: Login pages aren't home pages! Still, Microsoft has other login screens that log you into a Passport account. See or
Fleet Command (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
My point had always been " was the home page for Windows Live ID but it no longer is". But anyway, I'm happy for your suggestion to "insert all three URLs in the article (in External Links section) but remove all URLs from the infobox", simply because does allow users to create an account.
In relation to the {{Update}} tag in the "Overview" section of the article, my main concern is with the paragraph starting with "Windows Live ID service offers a user to make an ID by three different methods: ... " According to [2] (a more current and reliable source), there really is only two ways to create a Windows Live ID: (1) Using your existing email address, or (2) Create a new email address (either,,, or whatever Microsoft offers). This seems to correspond nicely to what you refer to as "Linked ID" and "Hotmail ID" in the article (although I don't think "Linked ID" is a correct term to use here as it also means something else). The so-called "Limited ID" you refer to in the article is just another "Hotmail ID", as a account isn't any different from any other accounts created this way. I'd recommend updating this paragraph according to the information in this source instead, dropping the "Limited ID" bullet point.
About the thing, my main concern is regarding this line in the article: "There are also several other companies that use it, such as Adobe Systems and Hoyts." Can you please insert your source for this one, or drop this line in the article?
Thanks. --Damaster98 (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Windows Live Account[edit]

FleetCommand suggested to merge a miserable stub into Microsoft account, please do. – (talk) 09:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, yeah. I guess I am going to do it; per Wikipedia:Silence and consensus, I assume no one objects. Fleet Command (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

New name- Microsoft account[edit]

As some know, it is now Microsoft account (not Microsoft Account). can we change the article name please- I don't want it to confuse users with Windows 8 calling it Microsoft account. See (BenBen1234 (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC))

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. Cúchullain t/c 14:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Microsoft accountWindows Live ID – The re-naming of Windows Live ID to Microsoft Account is based off interface elements contained within a pre-release version of the Windows operating system (or in laymans terms, only the Windows 8 and Visual Studio 2012 betas actually call them this. Everything else still calls them a Windows Live ID). It should not be moved until the name change has been officially pushed out. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose - So how do we define the time when it is being "officially" being pushed out? Microsoft has officially announced the rebranding of Windows Live ID to Microsoft account. (Ref: [3]) As you mentioned, some products (such as Windows 8 and Visual Studio 2012) already refers to it as Microsoft account. Some service will gradually transition to the new name. Whilst some other products may never transition (do we really expect Microsoft to update mentions of "Windows Live ID" in Windows 7?). There will never be a fine line to say "yes, Microsoft account has been officially pushed out" today. In such case, I believe that the official announcement is sufficient. Furthermore, Windows Live ID already redirects to Microsoft account, and hence readers will have no issue reaching here. --Damaster98 (talk) 09:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - For the same reason as above. heat_fan1 (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment: I was thinking when the web login screens and account portal get updated to the design seen here, that's when the name change will be official. When they pushed out the Windows Live name change, how quickly will they change the name? Also, you reverted an edit that also contained a change detailing what Windows 8 can do with these accounts. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, for now: We should try to reflect common usage, not necessarily the latest announcement from the vendor (though that should certainly be cleared up in the lede, and redirects are a good idea too). When "Microsoft account" is used more widely - IE. across the broader intertubes, not just in Microsoft news bulletins &c - I would be happy for this article to be at "Microsoft account". bobrayner (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This is now a Microsoft-only credential?[edit]

Is it true that only Microsoft properties use this service? If so, I think this should be mentioned in the article, as it's a significant change from the project's original goal.--NapoliRoma (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)