Jump to content

Talk:Apple TV app

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Apple TV Channels)

Expansion

[edit]

I am going to try to make a section for all the apps that are included on this page to expand it. 2601:8C:4001:DCB9:4C67:276E:19E3:C6D2 (talk) 01:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 September 2017

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus, so moving back to TV (software). What a mess. The WP:BOLD move should have just been reverted when it was first questioned, and a move request opened from there, per WP:BRD. And the discussion below is not a coherent discussion, it seems to be three separate discussions, all with their own support/oppose votes. As there is clearly no overwhelming consensus in favour of any of the proposed titles, and the original title is supported by some, this discussion is a no consensus and we go back to the original name. If anyone wants to propose a move to a new title from that basepoint, and can get consensus around any particular one, then please go ahead and file a new RM.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


TV (Apple) → TV (software) – This unexplained move yesterday messed things up. The user made a dab page for "TV (software)" and put a bunch of streaming apps on it, like Microsoft Movies & TV, Google Play Movies & TV, and Netflix. I redirected that page back to "TV (Apple)" upon seeing it, and the reason why is because there are just way too many TV apps/services that can be put on that page that do not share the same purpose as Apple's TV app. It should be move back to "TV (software)" in order to avoid confusion with the Apple TV. JE98 (talk) 12:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]

"TV (software)"

[edit]

"TV (Apple software)"

[edit]

"TV (app)'

[edit]

"Apple TV (software)"

[edit]

Discussion

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 6 October 2017

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 04:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TV (software) → Apple TV (software) – Per my comments in the previous discussion, which I will copy here - "As much as we want to disassociate this application with Apple TV, this is, after all, the feature application in tvOS. The application has been named by Apple in official marketing as explicitly 'Apple TV'; the only time it is ever officially named simply 'TV', is on the home screens of iOS, where names are abridged to fit the screen. Here's the page for the application from Apple's official United States, Canadian, and Australian websites, being referred to multiple times as 'Apple TV'. Here's what the application looks like in the iOS App Store, with it being named 'Apple TV'." Per JE98's reccomendation, it'd be best if we don't split the discussion into multiple proposals at the same time, and go one by one. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 16:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
  • Support "TV (software)" is overly vague and could refer to any software involving or installed on a TV. I support the current proposal, with the potential alternative of "TV (Apple software)".ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We have a move request just a short time ago and this proposal gained no consensus. "TV (software)" and "TV (Apple software)" really make no difference to me. You just lengthen the name because of your own pet peeve. This is the first time someone tags both the company name and the "(software)" suffix to something. Really, this is unnatural to flaunt the company's name into the reader's face so strongly. —Codename Lisa (talk) 07:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Oh, great. Renomination! What's the idea here? Harass the community until they give up their position in despair just so you can have your way? This nomination seems like the kind of malicious conduct seen in Apple's App Store. One doesn't call its app "OneMessenger", but "ACME OneMessenger Encrypted Private IM and Group Chat". Do you want people to read the article or not? Or are you just an Apple fanboy who wants to add Apple's majestic name to everything as far as you can help it? Why not merge this article into Apple TV anyway? WP:SIZERULE allows it and it would be contextually correct. —FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 07:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The previous discussion ended with "no consensus", and I explicitly said in the close that editors are welcome to open a new request to try to find an actual consensus. Please argue the proposal on its merits, not through accusations of procedural problems or personal attacks on the nominator.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result." (Narcotics Anonymous, 1981) That's all the merit I see in this nomination, whose opening statement is a mere copy and paste.
Also, you admins and your flawed interpretation of WP:CIVIL is the reason behind the Wikipedia community's decline: You let harassers push someone over the edge, and when that person snaps and says something not nice, you block him/her, thus injury to injury. Even law changes a murder verdict into manslaughter when there is provocation. You blind admins don't. —FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 13:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@FleetCommand: How does a request for a better discussion, that’s more clearer and less messier than the one that occurred above, equate to ‘harassment’, exactly? What’s wrong with wanting there to be a consensus on something? I compel you to reply without accusing anybody of anything, or personally attacking anybody, by the way. This my second experience with you where you’ve personally attacked me with no explicit provocation, and turned an innocuous discussion into a heated one without provocation. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 13:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are crazy! You have lost your mind. If you permit one infraction, it emboldens the miscreant into more infractions. For all I care, a "no consensus" verdict also does not permit any action. It is as good as oppose. But a synthetic support?! It is just pure cheating, only this time, the other way around. Does any of this make any sense to you? FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 12:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No consensus is not an oppose, only oppose is that. The original nomination was not a no consensus just because of an equal amount on both sides but because their was three separate discussions. Doing the separate discussions individually is not an infraction. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am crazy, but not insane?
Yes, it makes sense to me. More than you think. There was a certain incident in which I submitted a page for rename and the action was decided controversial. I prevented its escalation, but naming no names, there was a person who was no satisfied. Months later, he entered a dispute with you over the same issue, only you orchestrated a full discussion, in which the overwhelming consensus was not what said person wanted.
I learned something then and there: An explicit consensus isn't a rope that ties your hand; it is a rope the partitions off a part of a museum to everyone. People try to skip over it are caught by the security. But without that rope, what would you do? Amakuru has already said "no infractions" and you know well that no other admin would say anything else because admins actively avoid disagreeing. Say "yes" to sanity, FleetCommand. It would benefit all.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Codename Lisa above. But on the condition that there be no more rename requests unless the name was changed D.R.A.M.A.T.I.C.A.L.L.Y on Apple's end. I just hope that Codename Lisa's faith is vindicated. I am doing this despite an editor having contested PhilipTerryGraham's claim on the name of the app being "Apple TV": The name appears as "TV" on the iPhone tile, and there has been a long-standing consensus that prefixing the company name to the app name in the article title, for the sake of natural disambiguation, is appropriate. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 12:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@FleetCommand: I explicitly stated in my original nomination that the iOS home screen is the only place where the name is truncated to “TV”. All applications have their names truncated to fit on the home screen if their names are too long. Examples include “Facebook Messenger” → “Messenger”, “Enlight Photofox” → “Enlight”, and “Google Play Music” → “Play Music”. In addition, I also cited in my original paragraph the listing on the App Store, which has it listed as "Apple TV". – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 18:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I said "Support", please leave me alone. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 12:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I also changed my mind. I looked at the App Store and it refers to the app as "Apple TV". JE98 (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support . "Apple TV (software)" seems like a nice name for the article — makes it sound less like it's going to be an article about software for watching television in general, which the current title does (to me, at least). —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 23:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
MfortyoneA has been blocked on sockpuppetry. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Emir of Wikipedia: Alrighty then, thanks for letting us know! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 15:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why are we going with software over application or app? An app is a piece of software but not all pieces of software are apps. For example, the Apple tvOS is a piece of software, but it is not a piece of application. It really needs to include the word app for it to be disambiguated. A quick google search shows that's how many news (and even Apple disambiguates). My nomination is "TV (Apple app)" or "Apple TV app" or Apple TV (application) in order of personal preference. I'm not sure what warrants having the full word "application" in the title, because that doesn't follow WP:NATURAL WikIan -(talk) 22:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@WikIan: You do bring up a good point. I only went with "software" because it was the word used to disambiguate several similar pages. I assumed there was a consensus for "software" to be the disambiguation over "app" or "application". Although, there had been a lot of bickering on various talk pages of these iOS app pages concerning what word to disambiguate with. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 06:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@PhilipTerryGraham: Actually, you assumed right about "software". There indeed is vast consensus through being status quo in favor of it. Moreover, WikIan's disregard for it took him to ANI, where he received an administrator's warning, and a cease and desist order to stop all non-collegial actions, complemented with a threat of one month block if he fails to comply. (The funny thing is that he actually went there to complain.) —Codename Lisa (talk) 07:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Codename Lisa: I will say, though, WP:EDITCONSENSUS and WP:OSE can contradict each other. The line's a bit blurry between what can be considered okay to copy and conform and what isn't, me thinks. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 07:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@PhilipTerryGraham: These two links lead to things that are not of the same nature.
  1. Consensus through editing is a week form of consensus built on the premise that an editor has made an edit with a reason in the edit summary and the edit gained acceptance. It is overridden by strong consensus forms such as consensus through discussion and policy.
  2. "Other stuff exists" is an argument made after it is pointed out that a certain edit is in violation of a policy, guideline or explicit talk page consensus, all of which are strong consensus forms. The object of this argument is to annoy the disputing party.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding ANI, I did not receive a warn on my article renaming, and I not even over FC's comments. But rather if I post screenshots of vandalism. In any case, Mobile_app is-a piece of software but not vice versa. WikIan -(talk) 20:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Still refusing to get the point, aren't you? Good. A block will knock you sober, just as Microsoft's upgrade to Outlook.com did. So, please, please, please keep up the denial. Actually, every time you go to bed, repeat: I ain't know nothing about no ANI warning. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 12:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There you go again, still acting without civility. Seems to me you're on a campaign to drive away productive members. Find out where I was threatened with a block over article renaming. AFAIK you're the one threatened with a block due to lack of civility and believing you content. This is the last time I'm responding to you here, this conversation is about the naming of this article, go take this over to my talk page if you still don't why you were listed at ANI. WikIan -(talk) 21:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"TV app" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect TV app. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 22:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 July 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ASUKITE 01:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apple TV (software) → Apple TV app – Considering that Apple uses the designation Apple TV app on their website,[1][2][3] I think that this is a more natural, more recognizable, and more common article title that is, due to its descriptive nature, equally precise.

References

  1. ^ "TV". Apple. Retrieved 2021-07-18.
  2. ^ "Apple TV app". Apple. Retrieved 2021-07-18.
  3. ^ "Site Map". Apple. Retrieved 2021-07-18.

– Andibrema (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apple_TV_app&oldid=1250720671"