Microsoft: Windows Template‑class

This template 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 Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This template is supported by WikiProject Microsoft Windows.

Software: Computing Template‑class

This template 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 Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This template is supported by WikiProject Computing.

I think Live Mesh deserves its own section in the template instead of being part of "software applicaitons". Grouping it either under or with Windows Live Core seems more appropriate - since they're a new "branch" of software+services.

In addition to this, what is Live Mesh's relationship with Windows Live Core? I have read somewhere that Live Mesh is one part of Windows Live Core, but still unsure what it's all about. Please share you view or any sources you could find. And please refrain from merging the two articles until a concensus is reached. Thank you! --Pikablu0530 (talk) 08:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No one was merging. Its Windows Live Drive vs Windows Live SkyDrive all over again. I think that Mesh is probably an application that uses the Core services. Probably its not yet mature enough to allow external access to the services in a granular fashion. See this architectural diagram for Mesh. See the infrastructure services layer. Thats an awful lot like what Core set out to achieve. But, this is all speculation on my part. But, in all, the entire Windows Live stuff is a branding mess.

As for the navbox organization, Live Core group doesn't sound a bad idea. The only thing, we don't know yet Mesh is a Live Core application. --soum ^talk 08:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

http://www.mshorizon.com, linked to from Windows Live Core, now redirects to http://www.mesh.com/. I think it's fair to say the two projects are one in the same. 128.237.236.7 (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably. But since Horizon != Live Core, this does not solve our dilemma. --soum ^talk 19:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Core, Horizon and now Mesh are the same. See Microsoft confirmation in the MJF article above.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.131.121 (talk • contribs)

She says Horizon and Core are same. but of Windows Live Core she says that this is just one app in the Live Core strategy. So that door is still wide open. With one more question - is Live Core a strategy or a deliverable service/software/API? --soum ^talk 01:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with you soum it's a huge branding mess. There's basically two possibilities: Live Mesh is a part of the broader Windows Live Core, or Live Mesh IS Windows Live Core. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 02:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any idea how to tackle this Windows Live Mess? --soum ^talk 14:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a much better branding there soum! Well..we could do one of two things: 1. Merge Windows Live Core with Live Mesh (under the name Live Mesh and redirect Windows Live Core over) or 2. Leave it as it is now. Reading both articles I don't have any problems merging the two. What do you think? --Pikablu0530 (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Windows Live Core article, as it stands now contains basically nothing (just a vague quote from Ray Ozzie). It can be redirected here (as can Horizon). If something else comes up, recreating the article won't take time. I am redirecting it. --soum ^talk 01:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey all, Jeremy Mazner here from the Live Mesh team and blog. I'd be happy to help sort out the basics of how we think about/describe the Live Mesh platform. I am however a newbie at Wikipedia contributions, so want to take your lead on how to best contribute. I tried to email you via the site, but I'm unable to log in with my newly created account (log in just spins for minutes...I eventually gave up.) I'm hesistant to leave an email address here due to spam, so best way to contact me is via http://blogs.msdn.com/jmazner/contact.aspx to start. Also, you might want to check out http://dev.live.com/img/files/LiveMesh1stLook.pdf for more perspective on the platform. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmazner (talk • contribs) 18:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(de-indent)Hi Jeremy, you can contact me by using Special:Emailuser/Soumyasch (neither of ours email IDs will be made public but we will know each others'). To satrt with a review of if things are correct would be very helpful. And a few more blog posts on the architectural details please :) Is it basically just a highly scalable glorified directory service at the heart of the service? --soum ^talk 08:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relocated

Relocated from talk:Live Mesh Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Microsoft has rebranded Windows Live to Microsoft web service. Source: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-live/sign-in-how — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humphreyyue (talk • contribs) 10:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And on the same page I see reference to "Microsoft program or service", then on https://status.live.com/ I see references to "Microsoft services". Not to mention that on your page it says Xbox LIVE and Office Live are part of this "Microsoft program or service", which is entirely out of the scope of what Windows Live originally was. They're just generic references to services and programs provided by Microsoft. How is that a source, or any indication at all, that it is the new brand?

Windows Live should remain as it is, as it was something that existed in the past, even if its future may be replaced something else. You don't go renaming Windows XP to Windows 8 just because it got superseded or replaced, same principle here. --Damaster98 (talk) 12:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But Microsoft no longer uses 'Windows Live'. http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2012/05/02/cloud-services-for-windows-8-and-windows-phone-windows-live-reimagined.aspx Humphreyyue (talk) 06:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For some reason they're still indexed with the rest of Windows Live, despite the fact that they're only used in the Chinese Mainland now. --86.81.201.94 (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not all services were completely discontinued and many like Windows Live Groups still exist today, there should be another row for services that were simply integrated in another, with a small number next to them for the service that they're integrated in. --87.208.17.6 (talk) 10:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Navbox is not a mean of disseminating information. So, no, the classification suggestions is a very bad one.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For a time the discontinued box included Hotmail which was simply renamed, Windows Live Search Centre was never really a site, rather it was rebranded before even becoming a part of Windows Live, Windows Live Mesh's desktop application became SkyDrive, though I understand that those are 2 different services, Windows Live Favourites is still supported by SkyDrive, and Windows Live Groups are also still supported by OneDrive. Windows Live Web Messenger and Windows Live Messenger are both still an option on Outlook.com and OneDrive, and the Windows Live Messenger icon is still shown in the chat function. Though I understand that on the Windows Live page there already is an explanation for what they became, but most of the features in the list simply aren't unsupported, I'm not suggesting that we should put all of them in another category (Mesh, Messenger and others are rightfully there), but on other Navboxes this is already a fact, for example the Nokia Navbox shows information about the subjects on them, so if this suggestion is very bad it should also be removed from other navboxes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Nokia

Regards, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 19:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi

1. If it is no longer a stand-alone service, it is discontinued. Things get discontinued because they are abandoned, merged, superseded or became irrelevant. Maybe we can talk about a better label but calling them "active" instead of "discontinued" is plain wrong, IMHO.
2. The subject of these articles are branded software and services not websites, although from what I have heard, there were Chimera articles about Windows Live in the past that are deleted when someone sent them to WP:AFD.
3. "Other stuff exists" is my most hated discussion in Wikipedia. I frankly don't care what other navboxes do, so long as it does not construe a global consensus

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 12:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Codename Lisa The same could be said about the MSN template then which has stated that any service that is integrated under another service is "rebranded", no offence but your reasoning is stupid, it's not "other stuff exists" it's what standard we must adhere, what other navboxes do is important because in the end there should be a standard to what comparable things can be, if you write every navbox uniquely on the situation then you'll get scattered navboxes that seem to contradict the general encyclopedic style of Wikipedia, anyhow I seem to have realised that since you do not care, and will not care by any comparison I'll bring up I'm essentially talking to a brick-wall here and I'll leave this template's structure alone for what it is.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, you are not talking to a brick wall; you are talking to a person that just called "stupid" and unwilling to have a compromise. In Wikipedia, we face a lot of situations in which two editor feel they completely disagree and can never reach a compromise. What would they do? They do WP:DR.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]