Talk:Windows Live/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archiving or removal of unnecessary discussion

Is there any mechanism be which unuseful discussion is removed? Fro instance, the lack of neutrality discussion is pointless now as that phrase no longer appears in the article.

Modding?

If you mod your PC or you install certain utilities, are you banned from Windows Live? More generally, are there any surprises in the EULAs to date? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 01:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I can answer your question Damian. There are different rules and regulations concerning PCs and their modifications. Unlike consoles, your PC can be tweaked as you see fit, as long as it's not used for illegal activities. Currently, Microsoft does not collect your personal information for advertising. I'll keep up you up to date. Would you like to try the services? I can invite you to Messenger Live Beta if you wish...--Kyle 15:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Lack of Neutrality

Is this article a little opinionated? Check the introductory section. A user states: "Strangely, there seems to be some inconsistency in services that fall under the Windows Live brand. In the case of Windows Live Messenger an executable must be downloaded and installed for access to the service. This defies what appears to be the definition of a live product." (Paragraph 3 of the introductory section). Please clarify or restructure the sentence so it does not sound like an opinion. --Kyle 14:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Windows Live Local

Do images assembled from screenshots of aerial images come under the Public Domain group. From what I understand the satellite imagery was originally obtained from the USGS, which is a US Govt dept? Richard Harvey 17:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous number of stubs should be merged into Windows Live

There are a ridiculous number of stubs with names like Windows Live Shopping, Windows Live QnA, Windows Live Drive, and so on and so on. See [1] (the Google results of a Wikipedia search for "live range", a computer-science concept which doesn't even have to do with Windows). All these stubs and substubs need to be merged into the Windows Live article and turned into redirects. (Some of them, such as Windows Live Search Mobile, clearly fall under Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but I don't care enough to push for all-out deletion. Someone else might, though.) --Quuxplusone 19:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree there are a large number articles labelled as stubs. However these are gradually being updated with new information and contents. These articles may require more user contributions. I have been updating a considerable amount of Windows Live articles (such as QnA, Search Mobile, Favorites, the list goes on) since the beginning of this year to make them more informative, rather than just a one-line article. In fact, some of the articles can actually have the stub tag removed (I'm not sure what is the borderline between a stub and a proper article). And for your information, Windows Live Search Mobile is definately not a "crystal ball", contrary to what you mentioned above (please see the article that I have recently updated for more information).
In regards to your Google search result, it is merely a conincidence as most Windows Live articles begins with the sentence "_______ is a part of Microsoft's Windows Live range of services". If you wish, it would be possible to edit the sentences to something else from these articles such that Google will provide more accurate search results.Pikablu0530 12:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Misleading liveclipboard.org link?

Isn't the link to http://www.liveclipboard.org totally misleading? It apparently has nothing to do with Microsoft Live Services, has it?

JRaue 22:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Very good point. It's not even an official Microsoft website. Pikablu0530 08:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Complete overhaul and reorganisation

It is known that the Windows Live articles on Wikipedia need some serious attention; many pages are outdated, poorly formatted, of a speculative nature and disorganised. I am planning a full overhaul of every Windows Live related article to see what can be done to update and organise them, below are some articles I have highlighted for different reasons, please give me your opinions on this so we can reach a suitable consensus.

--A Cornish Pasty 18:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


Hi again! Here's my opinions regarding the suggestions listed above:
    • Delete Windows Live Healthcare: This service was never confirmed and very little (if at all) is known about this. Possibly a speculated service. Agree to be deleted.
    • Do NOT Delete and instead Update Windows Live Clipboard: This service certainly did exist, and although it has been discontinued, a working demo (for certain versions of web browsers) is still available and deserves a mention on Wikipedia. Please read the bold texts at the end of my comments. However, there are available sources online for the article to be updated with more information so that it won't be a stub anymore.
    • Delete Windows Live Drive: As above for Windows Live Healthcare. Although the actual address did exist. Can be recreated anytime when it is officially announced.
    • Do NOT Merge Windows Live Agents and Windows Live Call into Windows Live Messenger: Both Windows Live Agents and Windows Live Call articles are large enough for them to exist as a separate article. Merging them into Windows Live Messenger, which is already a pretty long article by itself, would make it too long. A mention or subsection in the Windows Live Messenger article for Windows Live Agents and Windows Live Call could be made with a brief paragraph describing the services, and then link them to the existing main article.
    • Do NOT Delete Find reliable sources for Windows Live Barcode: This service did exist and before the website was suddenly removed without notice the article was sourced. A google search may find several websites having news and details on Windows Live Barcode. It should not be deleted because it definately did exist.
    • Do NOT Delete Find reliable sources for Windows Live Essentials: As a beta tester for this service I can say this definately exists, and is available on Windows Live Ideas if you are a beta tester. The current status for this beta is "temporarily closed" as stated on Windows Live Ideas. Thus there is no way this article should be removed at all.
    • Move Windows Live Search Center to a new section in Windows Desktop Search: The new section should be named "Windows Search 4" with references to its history as part of Windows Live. The current Windows Live Search Center article should be redirected to the new page.
I would also recommend NOT to remove references to the abovementioned moved or deleted services from the main Windows Live article. Currently they have statuses of either "proposed" or "rebranded" and should at the moment remain that way to show that it was once part of or announced as a Windows Live service. It is also important to note that discontinued softwares and services should not be urged to be deleted on Wikipedia. Pikablu0530 14:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Windows Live Sign-In Assistant

Should Sign In Assistant be added to the list of Live services? I'm not 100% sure myself as it is only a minor component, and so it isn't technically a service, however I still think there should be some mention of it in a Live article. Swanny 12:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Renaming pages to actual product names

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 TO REDIRECT CERTAIN ARTICLES TO THEIR OFFICIAL NAME per discussion and Table 2 (Proposed Decision column) below.

Hi,

Several articles have names which aren't actually the product names. Here's a list of misrecognized service/product names:

Table 1

Name in Wikipedia Actual name Comment
Live.com Mobile Live.com for mobile
Windows Live Search Live Search
Windows Live Search Mobile Live Search for mobile
Windows Live Search Academic Live Search Academic
Windows Live Search Books Live Search Books
Windows Live Publisher Live Search Books Publisher Program
Windows Live Maps Live Search Maps
Windows Live Search Product Upload Live Product Upload
Windows Live Search Products Live Product Search
Windows Live QnA Live QnA
Windows Live Clipboard Live Clipboard
Windows Live OneCare Safety Scanner Windows Live OneCare safety scanner Lowercase "safety scanner"
Windows Live TV Windows Live for TV
Windows Live Search Video Live Search Videos Seen here

As you can see from the table, the most widespread problem is the use of "Windows Live", when the actual service only includes "Live" in its name.

Would there be a problem if I started hauling through these pages, moving them accordingly? I'd also like to improve some of them a lot.

--Szajd 17:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, first, I think you should do some more research.... The majority of those names are left that way to keep the name as short as possible. Several of those articles actually mentioned that is is "also known as". I don't see the point in changing Live.com mobile to Live.com FOR mobile, it just sounds too long and tacky when it still describes what the article is about. Windows Live Search, Search Mobile, Search Academic, Search Books should be left the way they are (and especially Publisher, no way is the name being changed to Live Search Books Publisher Program!). Windows Live Maps should be left, it is not exactly a full division of Search, even though it has the Live Search logo at the top, and yet again, the article says "also known as Windows Live Search Maps". I moved Windows Live Search Product Upload and Windows Live Search Products to Windows Live Product Upload and Windows Live Product Search respectively, as their names did seem to be incorrect. Apart from the two product articles, I feel that the rest should remain the way they are. Despite the fact that some websites would call them just Live Search or Live QnA etc. it would be just an abbreviation, and their proper name does include Windows in it (the one exception being Live.com, nothing else to it). If you want some reference, check out Windows Live Betas Swanny92 02:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you Swanny92. It's a good move for Windows Live Product Upload, but I still prefer "Windows Live Search Products" to keep it under the "Search" stream - similar to Windows Live Search Academic. And Szajd, most of the articles already mention their alternative names in the first sentence (even bolded), so I don't think they should be moved for the same reasons Swanny92 said. Also, if you would like to improve them, feel free to do so. Pikablu0530 02:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't Wikipedia articles get their credibility from having the title of the article being the same as the subject of it? I'm sure there is a rule about it somewhere. The names were officially changed by Microsoft, read [2], and should reflect that in the article's title. --A Cornish Pasty 13:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with you, Swanny92. The stuff I listed above are the actual product and service names. If you would like me to, I'll collect a whole lot of reference for it (the product pages itself, most of the official blogs, interviews with Microsofties on the product teams, Microsoft press releases [which obviously include the totally-official names, since they go through massively under Marketing and PR], most of the marketing sites and sister sites for the products, etc. Yes, some Microsoft sites are inaccurate; as you've pointed out, Windows Live Betas is one of them.
I think the official information about this is overwhelming, compared to just one site (but, again, I didn't include actual references [i.e. links], because I don't have the time right now, but if you want me to, I'll more than happily collect them for you later). It's not like I didn't do enough research (I could say that to you instead, but I won't), and it's not like these names are abbreviations. Yes, Live Search was named Windows Live Search -- as a beta (before it was released to web).
I still stand by my "opinion" (= "my" facts :)). Oh, and about "no way is the name being changed to Live Search Books Publisher Program!" -- I hope you do agree with me, that it doesn't actually need a seperate article... I strongly believe it should be just a section of the article about Live Search Books. --Szajd 07:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

References

Nobody seems to say a thing about my arguments above, but I figured I should include the promised references, before I kindly ask you to voice your opinions about the facts I state.

So, the problem is: there are several Windows Live articles, that I believe are mistitled, because they're not under the appropriate names of the services. Swanny92 and Pikablu0530 argue that the names I state as correct are already in the first sentences of the articles, as "also known as" names. As I see it (but correct me if I'm wrong), they believe that every Windows Live service has Windows Live in its name, while I see that it's clearly not the case (especially with the Live Search related sub-services).

Currently, Wikipedia is telling wrong information to the world, by not changing the product titles in the articles to the accurate product titles. Many people come to Wikipedia to check up on something, and I don't think they should believe that the name of Live Search is Windows Live Search, because Wikipedia is mistaken.

Hence, I'd like to present some of my sources and references for the real names of the services. I'd like to ask every reader to compare the amounts of references pro and con, and chime in with a comment if they'd like to.

Table 2

Name in Wikipedia Actual name References Proposed Decision
Live.com Mobile Live.com for mobile ??? Unnecessary
Windows Live Search Live Search Live Search home, IE7 default search provider, Live Search team blog (with logo!), Microsoft.com search bar ("powered by"), get.live.com, PressPass overview, announcement press release... Redirect to Live Search
Windows Live Search Mobile Live Search for mobile Team blog post, Mobile client download site, Marketing site Redirect to Live Search Mobile
Unncessary to add the word "for" for the article title.
Windows Live Search Academic Live Search Academic Live Search Academic home, Live Search fact sheet, Live Search team blog post Redirect to Live Search Academic
Windows Live Search Books Live Search Books Live Search Books home, Live Search team blog post, and a more recent post, Live Search fact sheet Redirect to Live Search Books
Windows Live Publisher Live Search Books Publisher Program Publisher Program home Redirect to Live Search Books Publisher Program
Windows Live Maps Live Search Maps Live Search Maps home (check out About, Code of Conduct, Help), Interview, Marketing site, Virtual Earth team blog post (check out first sentence!), Live Search fact sheet, Live Search Maps fact sheet... Redirect to Live Search Maps
Windows Live Product Search Live Product Search Live Product Search home, Live Product Search team blog, Live Search team blog post Redirect to Live Product Search
Windows Live Product Upload Live Product Upload Same as above, plus: Live Product Upload home Redirect to Live Product Upload
Windows Live QnA Live QnA Live QnA home, Code of Conduct, Live Search fact sheet, Live QnA team blog Redirect to Live QnA
Windows Live Clipboard Live Clipboard This isn't even near a Windows Live service. This is a thing which has Live in its name... Live Clipboard team member's explanation, liveclipboard.org (unofficial site!), Technical introduction, Original blog post Redirect to Live Clipboard
Windows Live OneCare Safety Scanner Windows Live OneCare safety scanner Safety scanner home, Team blog (not the space title, but every other mention of the name since last August (including the profile name)), Windows Live OneCare blog post Unnecessary
Windows Live TV Windows Live for TV WL for TV team blog Unnecessary
Windows Live Search Video Live Search Video Seen here | Live Search Videos home Redirect to Live Search Video

--Szajd 14:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point of what Swanny92 and I have said. We acknowledge the fact that the NEW "official" name is "Live Search" or whatever you mentioned in the table above. But if you have been following Microsoft and Windows Live since the very beginning, then you would've known that all of the above names were and still are acceptable names for these products. I don't really see the fuss about correcting "Safety Scanner" to lower case or adding an extra "for" in between "Windows Live for TV" or "Windows Live Messenger for Mobile". The fact that they all have "Windows Live" in their name is because they ARE part of "Windows Live" services.
I'll give you an example where Wikipedia doesn't always follow the "official name" all the time (and correct me if I'm wrong). Take the article North West railway line, Sydney for example, the fact is that the "official name" has always been "North West Rail Link" as mentioned at the official site - the officials have never EVER called it "North West railway line" (and for the sake of the argument, at least Microsoft's employee did at least once named those products by the names above, eg. Windows Live Search). The article is named this way such that it would be consistent with all the other railway lines in Sydney, Australia. The fact is, it doesn't loose the article's meaning and I don't think it would mislead the readers coming to Wikipedia. Pikablu0530 10:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I can see your problem with the "for mobile" examples. And I do know that sometimes Wikipedia doesn't use official names (most notably with famous people; the article title for Che Guevara is not Ernesto Guevara de la Serna).
Mind you, I've been following MSN for a long time, and Windows Live since day 1 (November 2005), so I do believe I know something about it.
About these names being still acceptable: well, yeah, they're "acceptable". But I simply can't agree, that Live Search should be at Windows Live Search just because of "consistency". That isn't Microsoft's intention with these names. (BTW, there would be enough consistency within Live Search subsites.) Live Search was only called Windows Live Search when it was in beta. It's gone through a name change -- albeit a pretty minor one. With your logic, the Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 articles might still be at Windows Codename "Longhorn" and Windows Server Codename "Longhorn", as they were and still are acceptable names for these products.
But if you have been following Microsoft and Windows Live since the very beginning, then you would know the identity problems around Windows Live, and MSN. What I want to say with this is
1) this explains why some (maybe even "lots" or even "most") Microsofties call it Windows Live Search. Some Windows Live services has been renamed lots and lots of times, especially Live Search Maps (just top off my head: MSN Virtual Earth --> Windows Live Local --> Live Search Maps).
2) I do believe that Wikipedia using inaccurate titles only amplifies this effect of misperception around Windows Live.
So, just for the argument, I somewhat agree: the names are still "acceptable". But they are incorrect, or at most: secondary. Live Search is not "Windows Live Search also known as Live Search". It is more like "Live Search (previously known as MSN Search and later Windows Live Search)".
But I do feel happy about you coming up with real arguments. :)
--Szajd 21:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if anyone noticed this (seeing as no one mentioned it except A Cornish Pasty who posted it, but this article here seems to explain what Szajd's point is, and why most of those name changes would be relevant. If you don't want to bother reading it, it just says that Live Search and the sub-services of it has "severed" from Windows Live due to the technology that is used, and has become part of Microsoft adCenter (I think that's right). That I presume explains why it isn't called "Windows Live Search", and obviously the name change and reason wasn't explained to the users. So that I believe clears up matters for most of those services. That's my NEW say. Swanny92 05:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I have noticed the separation of Live Search team from Windows Live. Since this is the case, I would say it is reasonable to move the "Windows Live Search" articles to "Live Search". And I agree with you Szajd that Live Search Academic, Live Search Books, Live Product Search and Live Search Videos should be merged with Live Search article. I'd prefer that Live Search Books Publisher Program and Live Product Upload to remain separate articles though because they serve a different purpose than a vertical search engine. And for obvious reason, Live QnA and Live Search Maps deserves their own separate articles.
As for adding the word "for" or making the use of lower-case for "Safety Scanner", I still stand my view of seeing it as unnecessary. The word "for" can be used in the article itself, perhaps in the first line in bold.
And due to the official clarification by the Live Clipboard team, Windows Live Clipboard should be redirected to Live Clipboard.
And as a result of this proposed change, I'd suggest that for the main Windows Live article that we separate the Live Search services from the main table and create it's own table with the heading "Live Search". Similarly I'd suggest that Template:Windows Live to have a new category for "Live Search" and move these services into that category (with the exception of Live QnA, see question below)
For a final question, is Live QnA part of the Live Search services/team or still part of Windows Live team?
P.S. I have edited the table above.
--Pikablu0530 07:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Is QnA part of Live Search?

I think QnA is part of the Search, similar to Google and Google Groups, though I'm not certain. The only reason why I wouldn't think it is is because it doesn't have the Search bar at the top of the page. Swanny92 08:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
That reminds me, QnA actually does have the Search bar at the top of the page. Try searching something in the top search box, on the search results page you'll see the bar. --Pikablu0530 10:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow. As you can guess, I'm pretty happy I convinced you above. :) Although my main reason still wouldn't be the corporate architectural changes. I tend to see things more from a branding aspect. (And that would explain my view about merging Live Search Books and its Publisher Program, because it's more about the "long-term" use [being able to search books and publishing books to those databases], than the "short-term" use [one being a search engine, and the other being an upload site].
Anyway, with regards to Live QnA, my vision for this is the same. It may not be at the same level company wise, and its search aspects might be a bit different than, say Live Search Academic's, but it's featured in Live Search (the top search scope toolbar, and on the bottom of every search result page). (But to say something about corporate levels, I believe Betsy Aoki was at one point both member of the Live Search and Live QnA teams.)
So I'd say a definite yes to it. --Szajd 20:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
QnA should be a part of Search, for the reasons that Szajd said, and that Google Groups (don't know about Yahoo Answers though) does seem to be joined with the other search services (Web, Images, News etc.). Sorry when I meant search bar I was talking about the toolbar with the search buttons, not the search box. Otherwise you could assume that Hotmail, Spaces etc. is also part of the search service, which of course they're not :).
I don't know too much about Live Search Books but already with the Search branding it seems that the articles are now named from the branding aspect, so if the Search pages are going to be merged together, then I don't see why the Book & Publisher page shouldn't either. Swanny92 21:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


Tabs?

In the version of MSN before Windows Live, if you had multiple conversations going on, you could merge them all together into one window by pressing F9, and you can seperate them into seperate windows again by pressing F8. I installed Live two weeks ago, and I still haven't figured out how do merge them. And yet, somehow, it works for my sister, and it's automatic. How do I merge my windows into tabs, and how can I make it automatic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stormfin (talk • contribs) 03:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Stormfin. First of all, this talk page is to talk about the Windows Live article. Secondly, what you are talking about is actually Windows Live Messenger. Thirdly, tabbed conversation windows was never a feature of Windows Live Messenger / MSN Messenger. There is, however, a third-party addon, called Messenger Plus! Live, which I believe has this feature. Hope this helps. --Szajd (talk) 12:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


Split off list of services?

I'm no Wikipedia policy expert, but it seems like the comprehensive list of Windows Live services would be better off in a separate "List of Windows Live services" page. This page is pretty substantial even without it, and it seriously interrupts the flow of the article. Tophtucker (talk) 23:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

removal of suite name

The article is about Window Live and the products are already understated, and I don't we should add them, it is a form of advertising and because the Table is about explaining the products, the suite name itself doesn't serve as a purpose of explanation. Before you refute it please read the following section scope of removal of suite name on article --Ramu50 (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Referring to the same article you were referenced to, all I could see is your own opinion instead of a general consensus of editors on Wikipedia. Referring to products by their official and proper name is NOT advertising. We don't refer to "Windows Live Mail" as "Mail", we refer it as "Windows Live Mail" (it's proper name) for disambiguation. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 02:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's really important that we stick with official names for things in lists, not shortforms. I fully appreciate the counter-argument of using shorter names for readability (especially when it comes to Microsoft's punishingly long product names), but I think such cases should be limited to subsequent uses of a name in text, and even then only when it'll make a sentence run more smoothly. Warren -talk- 04:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I do recognize Microsoft products, but articles are made to be easily readable and the suite name doesn't serve any purpose in explanations what the products is. Also I think you guys should probably utilize (Redirect Pages), since most the products are considerably small, not that I am trying to place stub on them, because of their notability.

I suggest that, because if you look at Live Search, Microsoft's goal is to mainly provide Live Search Services to each indivisual field and possibly allowing others homepage to utilize their services, such as implementing a "Search bar" like customize Google Search, if we write the like Live Search Cashback, Live Search Club, they sounds like indivisual services, but its not. Its the same thing as Google Search they are under the same homepages.

I also think it will improve the article, since I think Wikipedia doesn't promote articles to be written like documentations / comparison, with that being said if you consolidate you guys can focus on expanding each section of the articles and making it more professionally. Also it will break down the barriers (meaning everybody think Microsoft services is shitty or annoying) and actually make the articles more "friendliness" since a lot people in Wikipedia does connotate too much negativity like Uncyclopedia. --Ramu50 (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Sacrificing accuracy for readability is a big mistake. We're trying to produce a reference work here, and anyone coming to the article for reference-level detail would have a reasonable expectation that the words they're looking at are accurate. If the names are too long to fit easily into a five-column table, then we change the layout of the table instead of changing the information. For example -- do we really need the code-name of some of the products on the table? Probably not; this is a minor detail. Warren -talk- 17:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you Warren, I'd say the codename column should be removed, it was legacy information that remained since 2005 when Windows Live first started, when there were only a few services. As the table expanded, it's getting a bit cluttered and this codename column is not receiving any updates anymore. However, prior to removing the column, we should check that such information is already in the respective articles, just to keep history complete. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually I am just going to remove the name Windows for now, since the services is not orientated / limited to Windows only. Window Live are for Window OS specific desktop applications. Live services are "Web Services / Web Application." As seen in http://maps.live.com Microsoft use the "Window" Logo not the actual word. --Ramu50 (talk) 08:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

There has no consensus on this and hence things should not be changed, please do not just go and remove things from the article. For your information, Live Search Maps is part of Live Search, hence it uses the Live Search logo (which coincidentally, due to Live Search's history, uses the Windows Live logo), and it does not have the word "Windows" in its official name. Hence you cannot generalise Live Search Maps with the rest of Windows Live services by removing the word "Windows". Please do not go and change things without consensus especially when your understanding of the subject matter is very limited. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 11:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Separate Windows Live Essentials with Windows Live Services?

Since microsoft has already announced that the applications part of winodws live will be named live eseentials and the services part, just windows live, should these be separated into 2 categories? things like live mail, photo gallery, movie maker, etc... will go into one, and things like skydrive, foldershare, etc... will go into another

  • I had thought about doing that, however the problem lies with those "in between" or "neither" products. For example, Windows Live Agents is one of the "in between" products - it that part of Messenger? Yes, but it's not classified as part of "Windows Live Essentials" suite (officially by Microsoft). We also have those "neither" products, such as Windows Live OneCare - it's not part of "Windows Live Essentials", yet it's also not a web service but a software application. There's also those historical products in the table like WiFi Center or Search Center that falls neither in "Essentials" nor a web service. Splitting these into even more categories would be more confusing and defeats the purpose of going by the "Essentials vs web services" classification method. I guess the way we have our Wikipedia articles currently means that it's probably easier to leave them all in the same table. What are your thoughts? (P.S. FolderShare, or Windows Live Sync, is actually part of "Windows Live Essentials")--Pikablu0530 (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal/Relocation of Live Search Homepage Image

The use and caption of Live Search is misleading - the prominent placement of the Live Search homepage is misleading, given that Live Search is a completely distinct and seperate brand/service/group from Windows Live. Perhaps a screenshot of home.live.com would be more suitable.WasAPasserBy (talk) 07:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

  • You have a point WasAPasserBy, perhaps change it to the new home.live.com when it gets released and we have a screenshot of it available on Wikipedia. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 11:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Introduction OR

Silverlight was organized under Window Live, because RIAs are client-orientated.

This section is not necessary, Window Live is a brand therefore it is a product / services. Products / Services are optional choice by common sense so the bottom part is junk. If the sections refers to not supporting the "installation" then it needs to be rewritten and this section obviously shows no understanding of Software Distributions. Windows Movie Maker and Windows Mail are OS applications, they have NOTHING got to do with Window Live at all. 

Window 7 will not support "Windows Mail, Windows Photo Gallery and Windows Movie Maker" and 
replaced with the Windows Live Essentials suite, a software that allows the downloading and 
installation of similar offerings from Windows Live.

Browsers are based on Window Live that is totally WP:OR, some Browser came out even before Window Live was released and Silverlight 3 is working on cross-platform. It is both the browser and the RIAs developer job to work together, not who is base on who.ref.

Evidence should be given to prove Window Live is a program, if it even exists. 

Some released Windows Live services and programs include the Live Search search engine, the 
Windows Live Messenger instant messaging client, the Windows Live Hotmail webmail service, the 
Windows Live OneCare computer security service, and Windows Live Spaces.

--Ramu50 (talk) 09:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Apologies but I find it really hard to understand your broken English. From what I could understand though, it seems like you have a very limited understanding of Windows Live and how everything is organised. Please refer to the references provided already in the article to find out more about how Windows Mail, Photo Gallery and Movie Maker had been replaced with the Windows Live counterparts (you can find this on the Windows Experience Blog - official blog from the Microsoft Windows team). I don't see how Silverlight has anything to do with this. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


I will remove the Silverlight part. I misread Web browser based as Silverlight based. As seen below. 

Microsoft said that Windows Live "is a way to extend the Windows user experience".[3] However, 
some Web browser based Windows Live applications are available outside of Windows,

Aside from that Silverlight confusion, since some Window 7 applications were replaced by Window Live, the information should be in a separate section such as History or in the Window 7 article, not in introduction.

Since Live services evolved from

  • MSN
  • some Window OS application

AND

Currently encompass

  • Office Live
  • Xbox Live

I think it would be more wise to explain all that in 2 or 3 paragraphs, rather than having multiple articles e.g. Live Services. You mention WP:MOS yet you've failed to do so, Wikipedia doesn't promote articles begin written using lists, tables...etc though I totally don't oppose it, but it doesn't show any skills of experise and professionalism.

Regarding Quote 2, Window Live is just a brandname NOT a program. I don't even understand why you remove the Window Live Table, since the previous version of the introduction clearly stated that Window Live evolved from MSN, Window OS application...etc. Categorizating all of them into one table is totally incorrect, not all of them are "web services." --Ramu50 (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Let's get a few things right. First, the introduction explains what Windows Live is. Microsoft explains that Windows Live "is a way to extend the Windows user experience", and how this is done is explained in the introduction, such as having the Windows Live Essentials suite to "extend" the Windows 7 experience. There is no reason to remove this from the introduction, although if preferred this information can also be added into the Windows 7 article. Secondly, I never mentioned WP:MOS in any of my discussion with you. Thirdly, no one (nor the article) ever suggested that Windows Live is a software program, so i don't know where you got that idea from. Fourth, nothing in the article suggests that the Windows Live services in the table are "web services", it simply lists and explains each of the Windows Live services that are/were available, including both applications and web services. I reverted your edit because I fail to see the logic behind how you split the table (e.g. you placed Windows Live Photos in the "desktop application" table, while things like WIndows Live Toolbar and Windows Live Mail in the "web services" table, it totally confuses the reader). Please refer to this discussion regarding a similar suggestion. Fifth, Windows Live does NOT encompass Office Live and Xbox Live, please understand this. Also, just a reminder that it is "Windows" when we refer to the operating system or "Windows Live" for the web property (not "Window" or "Window Live"). --Pikablu0530 (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Another thing you should understand is that "Live Services" is a developer portal for Azure Services Platform and Windows Live services It was previously titled "Windows Live Dev" but now has moved out from the Windows Live branding since its inclusion with Azure Services Platform, but still contains (but not limited to) many of the SDKs and APIs for Windows Live services. From looking at your comments, it seems like you're confusing this with "Windows Live" services. I think the Windows Live article explains this pretty well already (I hope you have actually read it properly and understood it). As stated many times already, please do some further research to clarify your own understanding before editing something that you don't completely understand. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Apparently somebody did mention Window Live is a program and that person would be user Szajd on June 17, 2007. [3], I apologize earlier I didn't notice I wrote the word "software programs," but nevertheless they are no evidence.
Well the Window Live are either Web Services / Web Applications, but I think they use virtualization. For Window Live Toolbar, Window Live Mail I will correct that.
I am suggesting this section to be renamed to Live, not including Xbox Live as part of Window Live. I mention before it should be included since Office Live and Xbox Live are already mentioned, so why not make a small section for referencing them for people who got no clue the Live branch even exists, since Microsoft make it so confusing for the general audience. For Live Services rebranding to Azure Platform, the article shows no citations for it.
A better way to do it is to have a small section on Window Live Dev, and then link the article, like how the article Centrino link to MID
--Ramu50 (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
What Szajd wrote was correct - he mentioned Windows Live "is the collective brand name for a set of services and software products from Microsoft. A majority of these services are Web applications, accessible from a browser, but there are applications that need installing as well." (direct quote from the link you provided) There's nothing wrong with that, he did not say Windows Live is a program. And no Windows Live has nothing to do with virtualization, you really need to broaden your understanding before you edit and suggest changes.
You seem to have not understood anything I said about Live Services, please re-read my comments above regarding Live Services. To clarify, it was "Windows Live Dev" that got renamed to "Live Services".
Additionally, in the article, it already explained the Live branding in the introduction, and wikilinks to the disambiguation page for Microsoft Live (Quote:) "Besides Windows Live, which is mainly aimed at individuals, there are some other Web properties from Microsoft that are branded as "Live": Microsoft Office Live for small businesses, the Xbox Live multiplayer gaming and content delivery system for Xbox and Xbox 360, and the Games for Windows - LIVE multiplayer gaming service for Microsoft Windows." It really makes me wonder did you actually read any of the articles properly and understanding it before you conducted your disruptive edits. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 04:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Merging with Live Services

I think the article needs to be seriously merge. Wikipedia is not a documentations sites, therefore I think the chart would be better if it were separate by itself.

Window Live Desktop and Mobile are quite evident and needs to be clearly written, since the "Theme" section, it is very obvious Microsoft offered though services, because people may not like Window OS features.

I wish it was possible to integrated Office Live, Window Live and Xbox Live together. Since suites, brand should be written like this format e.g. StarOffice --Ramu50 (talk) 09:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Your lack of understanding in the subject matter amazes me. Live Services is only the developer's aspect of Windows Live (and not even limited to just Windows Live), hence there is no reason to merge this article with Live Services. Furthermore, Windows Live is a completely different subject matter from Office Live and Xbox Live, merging them would not make sense, as they are totally separate services from one another. Your wish of merging everything together is like wanting to merge all of the Microsoft Office applications or all of the Adobe CS4 software articles together, it simply does not make sense. Take note also that in your example, StarOffice Writer does have its own separate article. I'd recommend you to please research further into the subject matter before editing, thank you. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 12:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

What you just said is totally bullshit and you have absoultely no evidence. The Live Brand name is totally evident a design campaign for both desktop and web services. Likewise you can argue they are copying the open source strategy, in which open source offers desktop and networking services, instead Microsoft targets at a different spectrum. Office and Xbox live, are just a new spectrums of developement Microsoft targets on. In terms of servicing in different medium of devices, such as desktop, mobile, console...etc are just a simple form of Cloud Computing.

Thus CloudOS is like just an admin OS. For now don't quote me on CloudOS since there isn't much info released.

The Live Brand name is just branch out into the following

  • Window Live (Desktop)
  • Live Services (Mobile & Desktop / Web Integration or Synchronization)
  • Office Live (you could argue its a different segment or its a sub-segement of Live Services, either way works)
  • Xbox Live (Gaming )

Since Office network is already well developed with (SharePoint and PerformancePoint), Live Mesh is obviously applicable to add it. --Ramu50 (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

For the least give the point of view that you think how Live services is organized, the paragraph has no structure and I doubt such a large corporation would have no structural roadmap to begin with. --Ramu50 (talk) 21:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Windows Live for mobile devices

This blog posting details new services and updates for Windows Live services for mobile devices.[4] Noting it here in case someone wants to check to see that this article is up to date in regard to the mobile offerings. (Sorry that I don't have time at the moment to do it myself.) TimidGuy (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit

I edit the page. Rather a major edit at the top (added the infobox) if you don't like it, just revert it. :) RedXII (Talk :: Contribs) 19:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It was a good idea to add the infobox - however the information you included in the infobox was not entirely correct - mainly due to the fact that Windows Live covers such a broad spectrum of services that the infobox cannot reflect every piece of information about Windows Live's services. For example, "Winodws Live" was not released in 2008, the latest release version isn't all version 8.5 (in fact, only Messenger is, the rest varies from version 12 to 13 and some starts with version 1), and the next version definitely isn't version 9. "Windows Live" is much more than a communications suite. Your screenshot also didn't demonstrate much information about what the apps and services look like - readers can easily go into the individual article and see the screenshots there. The information you placed in the infobox reflects at most only about Windows Live Messenger - and not the wide range of other Windows Live services. In conclusion, it's a bit difficult to "summarise" everything about Windows Live into a single infobox, hence why there was never an infobox for this article. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. :) RedXII (Talk :: Contribs) 17:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Missing the point?

It seems that the article as it is now is really dry; just a straight description of what the apps are. There's nothing about how much they're actually used. It makes it sounds like a huge amount of effort has gone into developing these things, yet I've never encountered anyone using them or heard of anything beyond Live in the broad sense except as bloatware I've had to remove from new computers. Is there any info out there on usage, competitors, etc.? KarlM (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Concerned at the quality of this page

I feel that this page is not appropriate as it makes excessive use of jargon, commercial claims and references to Microsoft's own online materials. The problem seems so systemic that, as a non-expert and Wikipedia newbie, I don't feel personally able to make any changes. Chrisrustsheffield (talk) 05:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the move of this page

Consensus has been reached at Template talk:Windows Live#Requested Move that Windows Live should not be moved to any other name. It is here to stay. --Damaster98 (talk) 12:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

"Wave 6"?

Should a "Wave 6" be added under the User Interface section to mark the change to OneDrive and the addition of Office Online, or is this not significant enough of a change?

Shadowshack1485 (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. It is nice of you to ask before making another change. No. As the ZDNet source in Office Online article puts it, Microsoft has decided to drop Windows Live and start a new family of online services, namely Office Online. For all intents and purposes, the Windows Live episode is over.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 01:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Changes of 29 October 2014

Hi.

I am starting this topic in response to two bold edits made on 29 October 2014 by 109.22.125.90. Since I found those edits entirely questionable, I followed WP:BRD and reverted them, leaving my reasons. This thread aims to provide a better explanation, and provide an opportunity for dispute resolution, should 109.22.125.90 intended to take it.

Here is a detailed explanation of what happened:

  1. Bypassing redirects: In-article links redirects, like Windows Live Profile, were bypassed, e.g. changed to Profile (Microsoft service). This is against WP:NOTBROKEN, although it isn't something that I ordinarily wish to revert. (The revision that I reverted had other problems too.)
  2. Changing from correct to another correct: One instance of "Metro-style app" was changed to "Windows Store app". This one is a huge deal-breaker. According to MOS:STABILITY, ArbCom has ruled that one consistently used correct form must not be changed to another correct form. (e.g. one must NOT change "x64" to "x86-64" and vice versa.) "Metro-style app" and "Windows Store app" refer to the same thing, although Windows Store app is ambiguous.
  3. Lengthening listed names: Some names, like "Hotmail Calendar", were replaced with a longer version, e.g. "Windows Live Hotmail Calendar". As a result, the table has grown burgeoning large, even doesn't fit on a 1600×900 screen.
  4. Other name problems: This is part can easily be settled with sources. But AFAIK, "Windows Live Folders" never became an official name; "Microsoft Passport Network" is only related to ".NET Passport" (users signed up for a "Passport", not a "Passport Network"); "FolderShare" was deleted without a reason.

As always, I am open to a constructive discussion and even a compromise.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanation. I think your revert was warranted. TimidGuy (talk) 10:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I have noted two additional bad edits:
  1. Removing Admin Center from "Online Services". Obviously, the pretext is that it is discontinued. That's right. But "discontinued" and "online" aren't mutually exclusive. One thing can be discontinued and online at the same time. (It is rarely so.)
  2. Changing names and causing historic inaccuracy. "SkyDrive" is now called "OneDrive". But if one looked at an RTM copy of Windows 8 or sources about Windows 8, he wouldn't be able to find "OneDrive" in them. That's because the rename occurred in the time of Windows 8.1, on 27 January 2014.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

@FleetCommand: Hi. Nice job on the table. It has improved the article and hopefully reduces the number of 109.22.125.90 reverts. Established pattern shows you might have given him what he wants. ("Established pattern"! That's sarcastic, isn't it?) But mustn't we merge the entire "Renamed" table into "Online" table?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Not today. I have made one direct revert today (because 109 had deleted some of my additions without an edit summary) but Bbb23 might count my moving contents around as a revert. God knows I might have violated WP:3RR in his book. Oh, and you be careful too: Removing "app" probably counts as one revert in his book.
Some reverters say things like "it is discontinued in 2009, you stupido!" That at least gives an idea of what he wants. Fleet Command (talk) 10:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Don't assume bad faith in Bbb23. You must see what he did along with what he didn't: 3RR violators are speedy blocked, remember? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello again. Maybe commending 109.22.125.90 is in order, because for once, his edit summary is not a complete personal attack:

Undid revision by codename lisa: Superfluous addition of discontinued programs in Software (see WP:Stupidity, WP:BRRR) . OneDrive is only integrated into Windows 8.1 not Windows 8

Except it has two problems:

  1. "Superfluous addition of discontinued programs": All Windows Live software are discontinued. There is nothing superfluous about it.
  2. "OneDrive is only integrated into Windows 8.1 not Windows 8": Wrong! Windows 8 comes with a SkyDrive app. See [5]
  3. This is the actual edit diff: [6] 109.22.125.90 has done a lot of destructive edits like elimination of accessibility tags, the sneaky removal of web chat row and FolderShare.com mention, censored info about OneCare and a lot more to answer for.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Discontinued?

This article states that Windows Photo Gallery, Windows Movie Maker, and Windows Live Writer have been discontinued, yet it states no source, and on all of the respective pages there is no information on this supposed discontinuation, sure they're being neglected, but Microsoft hasn't officially deprecated them yet. --42.113.73.178 (talk) 08:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Windows Live. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

2018 revival not corroborated

I see no evidence online of the claim that the Windows Live brand will be revived. The article claims Microsoft announced this in January 2018, but |I could find no such announcement. — Supuhstar * — 20:54, 19 March 2018 (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:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Windows_Live/Archive_1&oldid=1144356517"