Talk:Microsoft Movies & TV

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Microsoft Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrosoftWikipedia:WikiProject MicrosoftTemplate:WikiProject MicrosoftMicrosoft articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Microsoft Windows: Computing Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microsoft Windows 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.Microsoft WindowsWikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsTemplate:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsMicrosoft Windows articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing. Software: Computing Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software 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.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Lnakim516 (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection.

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

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

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

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

Best regards,

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

A new name has officially been announced. --LyThienDao1984 (talk) _Movies_&_TV_(Microsoft_service)" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">02:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Hi, Daylen.

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

Best regards,

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

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

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

Hello, everyone

And hello, Rob984; you should probably see this.

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

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

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

Hello.

Please see the sources I added:

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

Here is the equivalent page for Groove:

• Groove, microsoft.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best regards,

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

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

"Xbox Video is now Microsoft Movies & TV"

"Q: What is changing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"What is the Microsoft Movies & TV app?"

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

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

Please see WP:NAMINGCRITERIA:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello again. :)

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

Best regards,

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

No it does not. It still says "A: 'Xbox Video" is now 'Microsoft Movies & TV'."

"Movies & TV is not more recognisable than "Microsoft Movies & TV". The service was renamed last week. "Movies & TV" is not recognisable at all, unless there is context (eg in Microsoft Windows 10).

Like I said, Word also lacks the prefix. So do most Microsoft apps. Please justify the inconsistency. And other companies do this also. Apple Music is named "Music" on iOS. Google Translate is named "Translate" in Android. How is Microsoft Movies & TV different? And those aren't any less important sources. Windows is not the be all and end all of Microsoft. The app is one of many Microsoft Movies & TV's apps across multiple platforms, including the web. All primary web-based sources refer to "Microsoft Movies & TV". You cannot ignore that.

First "fallacy", now "obscure" and "made up". You really must be joking. Multiple references by Microsoft explicitly referring to the new service as "Microsoft Movies & TV" is not "obscure" or "made up". It's evidence of a recognisable and precise name. One reference in Microsoft's own operating to "Movies & TV" is WP:SYNTHESIS.

Rob984 (talk) 18:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"No it does not. It still says [...]" I know. It is called being outdated. Also, see the en-GB version of that page too; no mention of "Film & TV". Looks like Microsoft websites are a mess unworthy of relying on as a source.

"WP:SYNTHESIS" Now, now! Talking just to have talked, are we? Referring to the app itself or service itself is WP:PRIMARY. In fact, this is one of the limited acceptable cases of WP:PRIMARY.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 22:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here goes.... I'd support a move to Microsoft Movies & TV. It's what Microsoft call their own product, and it's more succinct than what we have now. Cloudbound (talk) 20:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is NOT what Microsoft calls it. Does not have "Microsoft" in it. (Used to have.) And Movies & TV is even more succinct, in addition to being correct. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you really think "Movies & TV" conforms to WP:NAMINGCRITERIA then whatever, nobody in the WikiProject seems to care.

"The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject"

"The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for"

Also, why not go and apply your logic to Microsoft Word?

"The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles"

Obviously that would be absurd. But then, your entire argument here is absurd.
Regards,
Rob984 (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject". "Movies & TV" (with no "Microsoft") does it. We have no articles with titles as close as this, so it is unambiguous.
• "The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for". Perhaps, yes; perhaps not; I could use an evidence. But you are denying the antecedents; commonly incorrect searches are addressed with redirects, not the main title. We don't resort to falsification of the title to make up for the readers' mistakes. Maybe some people do not regard prefixing "Microsoft" to Microsoft products as falsification, but I do. I strongly believe that names of books, films, articles and computer software must be preserved as they appear in the work itself. Also, while you are reading Wikipedia:Article titles, read one of its sections, namely WP:PRECISION.
• "Also, why not go and apply your logic to Microsoft Word?" Again, your answer is in Wikipedia:Article titles, namely in WP:NATURALDIS. "Word" alone is ambiguous and natural disambiguation ("Microsoft Word") is favorable over parenthetical disambiguation (Word (software)). Microsoft and everyone else have been using the term "Microsoft Word" consistently since 1985; the minor instance of using "Word" in the title bar of Microsoft Word 2013 is not enough to make a common name. But in case of this service, the word "Microsoft" didn't appear recurrently enough. It is not natural disambiguation; it name torturing. In fact, take a look at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA again:

"Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects"

• "The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles". I see no violation here: Outlook.com, Groove Music, Bing, Yammer, Skype, Office 365, Word Web App, Excel Web App, PowerPoint Web App, Outlook Web App and Xbox Live are all titles of Microsoft services without "Microsoft" prefixed forcibly to them. But again, no denying the antecedents. I quote from WP:NAMINGCRITERIA:

These should be seen as goals, not as rules. For most topics, there is a simple and obvious title that meets these goals satisfactorily. If so, use it as a straightforward choice.

• "nobody in the WikiProject seems to care". Did you talk to them? I could use a diff.
• "Obviously that would be absurd. But then, your entire argument here is absurd." And here comes the personal attack. (At least, when you attack a person don't follow up with "regards".) Look, the only reason I am replying you is because I assume good faith in you and your purpose. I could have ignored you from the beginning and still have my way, but Wikipedia is not about winning. We resolve our dispute with consensus and compromise.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please see the ongoing discussion directly above. Rob984 (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Microsoft Movies & TV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150804175344/http://www.xbox.com/en-au/video to http://www.xbox.com/en-AU/video

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]