Talk:Microsoft Paint

Active discussions

MS Paint 3D -regarding edit by user:Codename LisaEdit

@Codename Lisa: you reverted my last edit here. I'd like to clarify that I was just doing RC patrol when I saw that an IP has removed substantial amount of information without any summary. I reverted his/her edit and warned him/her. I'd no intention to cause any edit war.
Except that, now that I saw your edit summary, I'd like to add that paint 3D isn't just speculation, It's been officially announced and shown by Microsoft. It's also, to the best of my knowledge, available as a beta on preview builds so WP:CRYSTAL isn't applicable. Thank you :) Yashovardhan (talk) 11:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Yashovardhan Dhanania: No, I did not revert your edit. Look again.
I reverted D3SG4MER24's edit which consisted of copyright violation in addition to WP:CRYSTAL violation. The images that he has uploaded are forbidden both here and on Commons. Commons does not accept fair-use image. We do not accept fair-use images that fail to comply with WP:NFCC#2. The WP:CRYSTAL bar will be removed in 11 days, so I advise everyone to wait instead of writing their own speculations.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh ok! No problem. Wikipedia notified me like "your edits to ... Were reverted" so... Nevermind!
And why 11 days? I'm not following Microsoft news as of late but are they finally releasing it officially now? Thanks Yashovardhan (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes. They are. Update 1703 goes live on 11 April 2017. Also Commons has already deleted D3SG4MER24's uploads. —Codename Lisa (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Most common nameEdit

Hello, guys.

Can we have a full scale discussion and put the issue of the most common name to rest? A recent edit from PapiDimmi tried to establish "MS Paint" is the most common name by giving only three usage examples! Please correct me if I am wrong, but doing so only proves that three sources have used "MS Paint". Actually, one of the sources (Gizmodo) uses "Microsoft Paint" as well.

Speaking only for myself, the most common name I've heard was "Paint". But how do we know for sure that it, or any other name, is the most common name?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 04:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, we can start with Google search results:
However, I seem to remember a policy that says doing this is invalid. But I don't remember why or which policy.
FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 05:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, clearly “MS Paint” is an extremely common name. Why should it not be included in the article as an alternate name for the software?
By the way, I don’t see how I was edit warring by undoing merely one revision. I did not violate the three-revert rule.Papí talk 16:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, so far, your proof for "extremely common" has been equal to just three articles.
Also, it has to be the most common name. Extremely common isn't enough.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 04:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Just google it. Papí talk 10:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
FleetCommand already did. "Microsoft Paint" was much more popular. —Codename Lisa (talk) 11:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Why does that mean that “MS Paint” shouldn’t be mentioned as an alternate name in the article?
By the way, why are you inserting line break tags above each one of your messages? It makes the page quite difficult to read. Papí talk 11:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Because our policy only sanctions the use of the official name (inserted once) and the most common name (used throughout the article).
Collapse side discussion about closing tags in signatures
As for the </br>, remember how you don't like people touching your messages? Well, I am not touching your messages. But I still need to a measure to counter the effect of <br>. So I use its closing counterpart. All these are just so that I don't get a headache and don't have to remove the Wikipedia's Official Syntax Highlighter either.
Of course, if change your signature, all these shenanigans will be over.
Codename Lisa (talk) 11:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I see you’re trying to manipulate me into changing my signature or letting you change my signature.

I don’t understand how inserting unnecessary line break tags achieves anything other than making the page difficult to read. How does inserting all these line break tags “solve” my signature? Papí talk 11:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you activate Syntax Highlighter in your own Wikipedia user account and, in addition to taking advantage of all its great benefits, see the problem for yourself?
Instead of all these bad faith conspiracy theories like "me trying to manipulate you", realize that there is a simple problem that I am simply trying to solve. FleetCommand edit-warred with you. I am not. I am simply changing my own message. —Codename Lisa (talk) 11:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I do not care if an unclosed line break tag isn’t properly highlighted when using some sort of highlight tool. Changing my signature without correcting some sort of formatting error which renders my comment difficult to read goes against WP:TPO, and I don’t want you to do it.
FleetCommand edit-warred with you. I am not. I am simply changing my own message. And my messages. Papí talk 11:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Say all you want. I am not edit-warring with you, even if beg me. Not over some pesky <br>s. —Codename Lisa (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
That is literally exactly what you’ve been doing earlier. Papí talk 15:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Back on topic here, WP:COMMONNAME is about article titles, not lead sentences. The applicable guideline here is WP:LEADSENTENCE, which says "When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations, including synonyms". It later calls out bolding any synonyms which are WP:OTHERNAMES, but that link says nothing about significant alternative names having to be "the most common name". MS Paint is a common enough synonym (and it derives from the name of the executable being called mspaint.exe since Windows 95 was introduced 22 years ago), so I don't see anything wrong with its inclusion as an alternative name in this article. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 23:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, now, you are discussing the lead only. The original editor intended this action to be a preamble to move the page to "MS Paint". As long as you agree that we are not moving the article, and the title at the top of the infobox remains untouched, we can discuss this with a more open mind.
Both due weight and common sense are still required. Including this certain name is like going to all articles about individuals and including "Mr. [Individual's name]" or "Ms. [Individual's name]" as the alternative. "MS Paint" isn't distinctive enough and is inferior writing form. Apart from that "Microsoft" is not part of the official title of this app. It is simply called "Paint". MS Paint would be a derivative of a derivative.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 04:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
What I am about to write, until further notice, is to be considered opinion only. I am not going to revert anyone or anything in this certain regard. In my opinion, Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for everyone's favorite made-up name for something, even if part of the official name is in that made-up name. We must only include one such name, the most common name. Official names, however, are negotiable because they have a purpose: You use them as a mean of identification. There are software written with those names and when you see them, they mean something to you.
Also, I don't think we should include all variations that on sight, can be plausibly identified as one of the names in the article. For example, we don't need to include "FireFox", "Starcraft" or "Github" in Firefox, StarCraft or GitHub articles because anyone who sees the former three knows that they mean the latter three. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 07:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
There might be a precedent for that. We don't write "MS Word", "MS Excel", "MS PowerPoint" or "MS Outlook", "MS Windows", or "MS Office" in the lead section of their corresponding articles either. "MS" is considered colloquial form. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Including specific version numbersEdit

Under the History section, the different releases of MS Paint should include the program version numbers to help distinguish them from each other.

I've confirmed that Windows 7 uses Paint v6.1. I would appreciate it if other users could help check Paint's version number for other versions of Windows. (The specific version number can be found on the "About Paint" window.)

--Stevoisiak (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Stevoisiak: Paint does not have a version number of its own; it always displays the Windows version number. Windows 7's version number is NT 6.1. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 04:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Windows 10 deprecationEdit

There seems to be a slow-witted edit war brewing over the quietly announced deprecation of MS Paint in the fall Creator's update, so I figured I'd add my two cents.

In my view, this is not a situation where WP:CRYSTAL applies. We shouldn't add *unverified* speculation, but this is not unverified. Planned deprecation of Paint has been reported on in multiple, verifiable, quality sources. Adding a single sentence noting this planned deprecation is not unverified. Please don't use WP:CRYSTAL as a kludgeon against anything occurring in the future; that is not its purpose. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello.
You might be happy to know that Microsoft has overturned its decision: blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2017/07/24/ms-paint-stay/ Paint isn't going anywhere.
So, it appears I was right to doubt Microsoft's so-called "planned deprecation" this time too.
That's said, there are other parts of WP:NOT that editors must respect, because it is one our fundamental pillars. WP:NOTNEWS is one of them. This item does not have lasting value. As Peter Bright of Ars Technica said:

Deprecation states formally that the feature is no longer actively developed, and it serves as a warning that Microsoft may remove the feature in a future release. Removal isn't guaranteed, however; there are parts of the Win32 API that have been deprecated for 20 years but still haven't been removed. It's possible that Paint will continue to ship with Windows in a kind of zombie state: not subject to any active maintenance but kept around indefinitely since it's self-contained and not a security risk.

Indeed, the end of the development of Paint is not going to surprise anyone who actually uses the thing; the last time it received any non-negligible improvements was in Windows 7, when its user interface was updated to use a ribbon control. Before that, it had an interface that had been largely untouched since Windows 3.1. As such, Microsoft's official deprecation is merely confirming something that was already obvious; it's not an indicator that anything has actually changed.

In addition, the is no edit war going on, as none of the reverting or reinstating editors up to this point have even been the same person. Edit war requires mens rea. There is none here.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Return to "Microsoft Paint" page.