Talk:Vista

message: Beuna Vista, Walt Disney's distributing company, should be included. --PenaltyKillah 02:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: INCLUDE BEUNA VISTA!

message: Shouldn't this just redirect to Windows Vista? How many people visiting this article will care about the VA's finance solution software or whatever that is? --Lucent 03:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The VA's VistA software even was discussed in the US Congress, repeatedly, as a model for national healthcare electronic medical records. It is, by volume and number of installations, the most widely used electronic medical record in the US, perhaps the world. Just because you don't know about that does not make it irrelevant. You may very well care about it if your doctor uses it. Besides, there are many other uses of the word Vista, including several towns, who I'm sure are insulted that you think their town is also irrelevant. Vista whould remain a neutral search term, not be hijacked by Microsoft junkies.Perspectoff (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree. Martin 12:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  This disambiguation page is fine as the default target.  For example typing "XP" doesn't immediately take you to Windows XP...  there are well-established prior meanings of "Vista", including towns and mountains with that name. -- Bovineone 02:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can't compare this situation with XP: XP has two common meanings inside IT community, one for Windows XP and one for eXtreme programming. But what other Vistas have you ever heard of? --Ondrejsv 14:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Certainly there are other things that use the term Vista, but our objective should not be to hold up some torch for unpopular previous uses. I'm frequently annoyed by the geek bias of WP articles, but this is certainly not a case of such bias. Windows powers 90%+ of the world's PCs and this is the name of its next incarnation. Possibly 99% of encyclopedia visitors are looking for this use of Vista and there is no doubt we're wasting their time showing them that government turnkey medical software has the same name as well as the atmosphere of a fictional story and Chilean telescope. --Lucent 22:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seriously, this page not redirecting to windows vista is stupid. Seriously. Stop kidding around. 64.40.46.223 02:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seriously. 64.40.46.223 02:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lol, thats a  wonderful Cartman-esque argument. Although, I do agree. How about moving all this to Vista (disambiguation), then redirecting Vista to Windows Vista and on that page putting an  tag. Sound good? There certainly seems to be a strong consensus here - Jak (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: While consensus wasn't reached on whether or not the article should be moved I think we can all agree that Windows Vista is what the vast majority of people searching "Vista" would be looking for. To better accommodate that I moved Windows Vista up one level to the top of the software list. That should make it easier to find and less confusing to people searching Vista. sean 16:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  When people search for XP, per example above, they could be searching for the Windows program, the emoticon, experience points, etc.  I really think the majority of people searching this would be looking for Windows Vista.  Redirect Vista to Windows Vista and stick a  tag on it pointing to a "Vista" disambig page. --Sbrools (talk . contribs) 18:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree. There are more than 51 disambiguation links, including several major alternative links to software that actually is named Vista (not Windows vista). Perspectoff (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect to Windows Vista

message: :The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was no consensus for move. Joelito (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Oppose.  Vista is a very common term that is well established.  Just because there is a new use, is not justification to make a change like this.  Even if the majority of the hits are for the OS, there is still the issue of not directing people to the wrong place.  This is likely to happen a large number of times.  Don't lose sight of the number of entries in the dab list already.  Vegaswikian 23:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Add any additional comments
*How can someone know, much less prove, that 99% of the searches will be for a particlar use?  Vegaswikian 18:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: 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.
I don't suppose there could be another Requested Move vote, since it's been half a year since the first vote. I would surmise, especially for this week, that the majority of the people here will be looking for Windows Vista. W3stfa11/Talk to me 18:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Oppose.  Vista is a very common term that is well established.  Just because there is a new use, is not justification to make a change like this.  Even if the majority of the hits are for the OS, there is still the issue of not directing people to the wrong place.  This is likely to happen a large number of times.  Don't lose sight of the number of entries in the dab list already.  Vegaswikian 23:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Add any additional comments
*How can someone know, much less prove, that 99% of the searches will be for a particlar use?  Vegaswikian 18:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.</div>
I don't suppose there could be another Requested Move vote, since it's been half a year since the first vote. I would surmise, especially for this week, that the majority of the people here will be looking for Windows Vista. W3stfa11/Talk to me 18:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: As posted in a comment by W3stfa11 furhter up, i agree that it's about time that there is another poll about having Vista redirecting to Windows Vista and moving the vista content to a disambiguate page.
As already posted last time, you cannot compare XP to Vista, as XP has more commonly uses other than just refering to the operating system by Microsoft ie. XP programming and Experience Points Cloud02 13:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, It is always best to redirect to the most common thing.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 22:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait 1 more week. If no one has made any sensible oppposing comment, or started a poll then this page should be moved to a disambiguate page, and Vista should redirect to Windows Vista Cloud02 13:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest that the poll should be required to move not the other way around. GraemeLeggett 13:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't this basically the poll, already? User:W3stfa11 20:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No there is a proper way to hold a poll to determine consensus. see Wikipedia:Requested moves
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by GraemeLeggett (talk • contribs) 11:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can someone properly start the poll? I'm fairly new here. :/ W3stfa11/Talk to me 15:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I would still oppose making "Vista" redirect to "Windows Vista" for reasons that have already been stated in the above voting. -- Bovineone 21:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will oppose the move as well. TJ Spyke 03:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New poll about redirect to Vista? 

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
====Survey - in support of the move====
# Support. W3stfa11/Talk to me 03:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: # Support. W3stfa11/Talk to me 03:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in support of the move

message: #Oppose for the same reasons the move was rejected before. Vista is a very common term that can refer to many things, not to mention that the OS is always called Windows Vista and that would be the most likely search. TJ Spyke 03:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in opposition to the move

message: The Veterans Administration electronic health record named VistA is much older than Windows Vista. It is one of the largest electronic medical records in the world. There are three bills in the US Congress concerning it. It is supported by a $784 million dollar grant to Hewlett-Packard.
Microsoft Windows Vista will likely disappear within 3 years, whereas the VA VistA may become the national electronic healthcare record standard (as was proposed in congressional bills.) Besides, as has been previously noted, Microsoft's operating system is not named Vista. It is named Windows Vista. 
I dislike it when search engines return near matches in preference to exact matches. (Google currently is committing the same sin, diminishing the value of Google in some respects.)
If anything, the VistA should be at the top of the list, not Windows Vista.
Physadvoc 14:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's yet another software "Vista", which is a programming language / run-time environment / thing which I haven't got a name for.  I've a vague notion that it broke cover in Australia in the mid-1970's; it's used in the book publishing industry. Certainly at my workplace, any mention of "Vista" will be for this, not Microsith. Mr Larrington (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Whether many people want to find Windows Vista or not is certainly not irrelevant. Have you actually read WP:PRIMARY? If Windows Vista ceases to be the primary use in the future (and I agree that it definitely will), then that's the time to change the redirect. Wikipedia is not static. —JAO • T • C 17:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I have read that policy. It has nothing to do with your position and does not support your contention. It does not specify that redirect links go to the most popular use of a neutral term. I refer every reader to the policy to see for themselves.69.104.55.70 (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hah, who knew that shortcut would go to primary sources? I meant WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, of course. —JAO • T • C 17:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Ah, but you are trying to assert that that Vista is synonymous with Windows Vista. That is a spammer's technique -- to hijack similar but different terms in the hopes of redirection. There is no argument that the primary desire in searches for "Windows Vista" is the Microsoft operating system (and this meets the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria). But you must prove that the primary use of the word "Vista" is as a Microsoft Operating system. Your contention rathers appears to be that a search for "Windows Vista" is so commonly mistaken as a search for "Vista" that the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC crtieria applies, but this is not supported by either the actual criteria nor by the Wikipedia:NPOV criteria that requires "all significant views" (or "vistas" -- hah!)Perspectoff (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be ignoring everyone else's comments and instead attacking them with rather snide comments. Look around you. "Vista" is now almost completely synonymous with Windows Vista, and your obvious anti-Microsoft bias won't help you win the dispute. I am changing it back as there is zero consensus to have it go to an unnecessary disambig page. You are also completely contradicting yourself. Look at the primary topic section you linked. Windows Vista gets far, far more hits than any of those pages, and a simple search for "Vista" on Google will have Windows dominating the search results (aside from a few links from a company's site that is also named Vista). I mean, look, you go onto Windows articles and you post links to free software (that are "alternative software to consider") or blank the page such as your edit to Windows XP. There is no discussion to be had here since you will throw around insulting anti-Microsoft terms such as "Microsoft sockpuppets". What is the meaning of all of this? Certainly not anything relevant about the redirect, other than you completely contradicting yourself and confusing policies with one another like in the above post. GraYoshi2x►talk 23:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Additionally those "debates" were from two years ago. Both of them had no consensus. Now there is clear, somewhat quiet consensus you start reverting it back on grounds of opposition (which are especially irrelevant now after 2 years of the release of Vista, and there was in fact NO CONSENSUS AT ALL)? Wikipedia is not a vote, and consensus can change. And according to your user page, you say that you've been avoiding Microsoft for over 10 years. So how are you supposed to know what is going on? Simply pushing your pro-Linux views is quite a bad reason. You also contribute to VistA. How are we supposed to know you are acting on a neutral point of view? GraYoshi2x►talk 23:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: VistA is the largest EMR platform in the United States. Almost half of all hospitals with fully implemented electronic medical records in the United States use VistA. Just because I worked on a small segment of the program at one institution does not make me an owner of the program (VistA is owned by the United States Veterans Administration). It was called VistA long before Windows Vista came along. For the past two years, there has been a both direct and subtle move to appropriate the term vista in all its flavours for Windows Vista. Your personal attacks (I do not avoid Microsoft -- I triple boot Linux and Windows computers and integrate Linux and Windows networks) have no place here and are hardly neutral. I believe this issue needs arbitration. Perspectoff (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, it sounds like you claim there is a cabal, which this has nothing to do with. Whether or not the usage of "Vista" for "Windows Vista" is a result of a "direct and subtle move" is immaterial. How people not affiliated with Microsoft nor VistA are actually using the word—for whatever reasons—is what counts. —JAO • T • C 18:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Arbitration? For an issue as trivial as this? Obviously you seem to be overreacting, especially when you're accusing me of attacking you when I did nothing of the sort. I was pointing out your own contributions to you. It also seems you completely ignore the fact that consensus can change, and as Jao said above, there is no cabal here. At all. GraYoshi2x►talk 05:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Per Wikipedia:Disambiguation: "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)." Not only has there been extended discussion, but two surveys, which have been ignored in implmenting this redirect of Vista to Windows Vista. The Wikipedia guidelines suggest, therefore that the link should go to the disambiguation page in such an instance. Perspectoff (talk) 17:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no "extended discussion". The only thing I see here is you disagreeing with the rest of us, and no other effort has been made to oppose the redirect. I think it's very clear what the outcome should be. You also seem to have ignored my comment when I said that consensus can change. Stuff from 2 years ago can hardly be applied as a reason now. GraYoshi2x►talk 22:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  VistA (the Veteran's Administration electronic health record) is older than Windows Vista 

message: Wikipedia requires a neutral point of view.  Redirecting a neutral search term like "Vista" to "Windows Vista" is far from neutral.
 
The purpose of an encyclopedia like Wikipedia is not as a marketing tool for Microsoft. The word "Vista", as can be seen from the disambiguation page, has many other uses. It is not right to allow Microsoft sock-puppets to derail Wikipedia by forcing anyone looking for any use of Vista to visit the Windows Vista entry first and then have to click a "disambiguation" link.
In fact, the disambiguation page is quite specific as being the more inclusive, and therefore neutral, entry for Vista. Further, Wiktionary links to the Wikipedia article Vista, with the intent of neutrality. That link is not meant to go to Windows Vista.
Whether many people want to find Windows Vista or not is irrelevant. Marketing sock-puppets for Microsoft on Wikipedia that assert that everyone entering the word "Vista" are actually looking for Windows Vista are not believable. (Wikirage, or whatever the Microsoft sock-puppets use, is not a justified data source for this purpose). Wikipedia transcends the search patterns of a relatively short period of time. Further, two debates (above) came to the consensus NOT to redirect Vista to Windows Vista, but to leave it redirected to Vista (disambiguation).
Windows 7 is the next Windows OS. At that time, presumably, no one will be interested in Windows Vista any longer. No searches for Vista on Wikipedia will then be for Windows Vista, then. Yet Wikipedia will still exist to provide information for uses of the term Vista.  QED.
Perspectoff (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether many people want to find Windows Vista or not is certainly not irrelevant. Have you actually read WP:PRIMARY? If Windows Vista ceases to be the primary use in the future (and I agree that it definitely will), then that's the time to change the redirect. Wikipedia is not static. —JAO • T • C 17:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I have read that policy. It has nothing to do with your position and does not support your contention. It does not specify that redirect links go to the most popular use of a neutral term. I refer every reader to the policy to see for themselves.69.104.55.70 (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hah, who knew that shortcut would go to primary sources? I meant WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, of course. —JAO • T • C 17:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Ah, but you are trying to assert that that Vista is synonymous with Windows Vista. That is a spammer's technique -- to hijack similar but different terms in the hopes of redirection. There is no argument that the primary desire in searches for "Windows Vista" is the Microsoft operating system (and this meets the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria). But you must prove that the primary use of the word "Vista" is as a Microsoft Operating system. Your contention rathers appears to be that a search for "Windows Vista" is so commonly mistaken as a search for "Vista" that the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC crtieria applies, but this is not supported by either the actual criteria nor by the Wikipedia:NPOV criteria that requires "all significant views" (or "vistas" -- hah!)Perspectoff (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be ignoring everyone else's comments and instead attacking them with rather snide comments. Look around you. "Vista" is now almost completely synonymous with Windows Vista, and your obvious anti-Microsoft bias won't help you win the dispute. I am changing it back as there is zero consensus to have it go to an unnecessary disambig page. You are also completely contradicting yourself. Look at the primary topic section you linked. Windows Vista gets far, far more hits than any of those pages, and a simple search for "Vista" on Google will have Windows dominating the search results (aside from a few links from a company's site that is also named Vista). I mean, look, you go onto Windows articles and you post links to free software (that are "alternative software to consider") or blank the page such as your edit to Windows XP. There is no discussion to be had here since you will throw around insulting anti-Microsoft terms such as "Microsoft sockpuppets". What is the meaning of all of this? Certainly not anything relevant about the redirect, other than you completely contradicting yourself and confusing policies with one another like in the above post. GraYoshi2x►talk 23:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Additionally those "debates" were from two years ago. Both of them had no consensus. Now there is clear, somewhat quiet consensus you start reverting it back on grounds of opposition (which are especially irrelevant now after 2 years of the release of Vista, and there was in fact NO CONSENSUS AT ALL)? Wikipedia is not a vote, and consensus can change. And according to your user page, you say that you've been avoiding Microsoft for over 10 years. So how are you supposed to know what is going on? Simply pushing your pro-Linux views is quite a bad reason. You also contribute to VistA. How are we supposed to know you are acting on a neutral point of view? GraYoshi2x►talk 23:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: VistA is the largest EMR platform in the United States. Almost half of all hospitals with fully implemented electronic medical records in the United States use VistA. Just because I worked on a small segment of the program at one institution does not make me an owner of the program (VistA is owned by the United States Veterans Administration). It was called VistA long before Windows Vista came along. For the past two years, there has been a both direct and subtle move to appropriate the term vista in all its flavours for Windows Vista. Your personal attacks (I do not avoid Microsoft -- I triple boot Linux and Windows computers and integrate Linux and Windows networks) have no place here and are hardly neutral. I believe this issue needs arbitration. Perspectoff (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, it sounds like you claim there is a cabal, which this has nothing to do with. Whether or not the usage of "Vista" for "Windows Vista" is a result of a "direct and subtle move" is immaterial. How people not affiliated with Microsoft nor VistA are actually using the word—for whatever reasons—is what counts. —JAO • T • C 18:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Arbitration? For an issue as trivial as this? Obviously you seem to be overreacting, especially when you're accusing me of attacking you when I did nothing of the sort. I was pointing out your own contributions to you. It also seems you completely ignore the fact that consensus can change, and as Jao said above, there is no cabal here. At all. GraYoshi2x►talk 05:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Per Wikipedia:Disambiguation: "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)." Not only has there been extended discussion, but two surveys, which have been ignored in implmenting this redirect of Vista to Windows Vista. The Wikipedia guidelines suggest, therefore that the link should go to the disambiguation page in such an instance. Perspectoff (talk) 17:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no "extended discussion". The only thing I see here is you disagreeing with the rest of us, and no other effort has been made to oppose the redirect. I think it's very clear what the outcome should be. You also seem to have ignored my comment when I said that consensus can change. Stuff from 2 years ago can hardly be applied as a reason now. GraYoshi2x►talk 22:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation page is very clear