Template talk:Microsoft/Archive 1

Archive 1

Gaming - "Halo Wars"

Why is a single game, "Halo Wars", listed under gaming?

Proposed move - "Microsoft products" --> "Microsoft"

Would anyone be against to a move of this template to "Template:Microsoft"?70.101.200.243 23:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Rename Title

Since the board of directors and other info has been added to this template, should the title still be Microsoft Products? I think it should just be Microsoft or Microsoft Corporation. --W. Flake ( talk | contribs ) 19:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Changed.DeathSeeker 00:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC) good show!--Johnhardcastle 12:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Width

Greetings to all,
We seem to have a lack of consensus regarding the width of the box. It seems that many (myself included) feel the box should be at 94%, to prevent the box from causing undue scrolling in large windows. Others seem to feel that 700px is better suited, to prevent the box from displaying to much whitespace. Both are valid points, so we need to decide how best to handle this problem so as to avoid an edit war.

My proposal is this:

width:94%; max-width:700px;

The width:94%; allows the box to expand or contract to prevent scrolling. The max-width:700px; caps the whitespace at 700px, in all modern browsers except Internet Explorer 6.

Does this sound reasonable?

--W. Flake ( talk | contribs ) 18:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Perfectly acceptable, no white space for higher-resolution users.DeathSeeker 23:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed changes

The template in its current form has many issues. They all revolve around the categorization chosen for the template:

Software * Technology * Web properties * Gaming * Hardware * Education and Recognition * Board of Directors

Some of these issues are outlined below: 1. Software. This is obviously the biggest area for Microsoft. It is, of course, impossible to list all the product, not even the major ones. The current selection in the template seems random. Next to the huge families of products such as Windows, Office and Server System, there are very minor products such as Encarta, Money and Defender. I suggest to list the product families the way Microsoft itself categorizes its products:

Windows • Office • Server System • Developer Tools • Business Solutions • Games and Xbox • MSN • Windows Mobile

2. Technology. It is really not clear what is technology vs. what is product. Is Active Directory a technology or just part of Windows ? Same about Internet Explorer and Windows Media. Is Play For Sure at the same league as the others ? Why .NET is listed, but not COM etc. I don't believe there is a coherent way to resolve this.

3. Web properties. Again, together with such giants as MSN and Windows Live, there is ninemsn. Why Hotmail and Messenger are separate from either MSN or Live ? Why Xbox Live is not listed as web property, but listed in gaming ? And most importantly, why there is a separate category for Web properties, but there is no category for Office or Windows or Server System. Are Web properties really that much more important ? I believe that since Microsoft itself categorises its Online Services as one product family, we should follow.

4. Hardware. Similar to Web properties - why would it deserve its own line in template. The actual list is a mess. There are some hardware devices such as Zune and Natural Keyword together with software system such as MSN TV and driver such as IntelliPoint. Finally, why Xbox is not listed as hardware ? And what would PocketPC or TabletPC be qualified as ?

5. Gaming. This line is dominated by Xbox. Is gaming so important that it gets detailed info about every version of Xbox, but entire Windows or Office is just one link ! I don't think so.

6. Windows Mobile is missing completely, but Microsoft itself categorizes it as one of product families.

So in order to address these and other issues, I went over some of other company templates to get a clue what looks like a good company template, and I added info such as stock symbol, revenues, number of employees and Web site. The result is below, and I propose to change the existing version to it. Please voice your opinions, comments and suggestions here.

Microsoft

Product Families: Windows • Office • Server System • Developer Tools • Business Solutions • Games and Xbox • MSN • Windows Mobile
Board of directors: Ballmer • Cash • Dublon • Gates • Gilmartin • Korologos • Marquardt • Noski • Panke • Shirley
Stock Symbol: (Nasdaq: MSFT) • Revenue: $44.282 billion USD (2006) • Net Income: $16.472 billion USD (2006)
Employees: 71,172 (2006) • Web site: www.microsoft.com

Wikiolap 06:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the page could use some refining, but your proposal, im my opinion, leaves too much useful information out. In addition, information regarding incomes seems more suitable for a specific infobox, rather than a template designed to cover the company's range of products. --W. Flake ( talk | contribs ) 00:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's compare this template to the templates by other major software companies:

• Template:IBM
• Template:Apple
• Template:Google

All three have information about income and stock symbol. I personally don't care much about it, but I think consistency is always good. I also personally don't think that this template should be designed to cover company's range of products - it is simply impossible to do in a template, and the templates of companies above don't try to do it (IBM, for example, probably has much more products than Microsoft). But let's see what the majority thinks. Wikiolap 16:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right, consistancy is a good thing. Maybe modeling this template after the Apple one would work. Board of directors, Hardware, Software, Other notable products/services, "See also", and the stock info would still have enough detail. --W. Flake ( talk | contribs ) 21:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Apple is categorized as Hardware and Software company, while Microsoft is categorized as Software company (the hardware part is still pretty small). But other than that, following your suggestion, we will get the following:

Microsoft

Product Families: Windows • Office • Server System • Developer Tools • Business Solutions • Games and Xbox • MSN • Windows Mobile
Board of directors: Ballmer • Cash • Dublon • Gates • Gilmartin • Korologos • Marquardt • Noski • Panke • Shirley
See also: History of Microsoft • List of Microsoft topics
Annual Revenue: $44.282 billion USD • Employees: 71,172 • Stock Symbol: (Nasdaq: MSFT) • Web site: www.microsoft.com

How does this one looks ? Wikiolap 03:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This one seems much better. The small additions provide the ability to access a lot of information. My only other problem is some of the mislabeled links. When I tried to use it, it was somewhat confusing in places. I realize that you are folling to home page's layout, but I think a slight modification may be in order. How about this:

Microsoft

Product Families: Windows • Office • Server System • Visual Studio • Dynamics Business Solutions • Xbox • MSN • Windows Mobile
Board of directors: Ballmer • Cash • Dublon • Gates • Gilmartin • Korologos • Marquardt • Noski • Panke • Shirley
See also: History of Microsoft • List of Microsoft topics
Annual Revenue: $44.282 billion USD • Employees: 71,172 • Stock Symbol: (Nasdaq: MSFT) • Web site: www.microsoft.com

Are you ok with this? --W. Flake ( talk | contribs ) 04:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes - the changes in labels make sense. Perhaps one day somebody will write good articles about Microsoft Development Tools and others - then we could adjust this template as well. Wikiolap 04:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Well, this was probably jumping the gun, but since we seemed to have reached a consensus, I went ahead and changed the template. --W. Flake ( talk | contribs ) 21:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you ! Wikiolap 23:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Reversion

I've reverted back to the old template. Frankly, the new one is a major regression -- it removed quite a number of links to a variety of articles that are about important or otherwise notable Microsoft products, technologies, and services. We want to make it easier, not harder to get around between various articles. I'm amazed that anybody would think that a Microsoft template could be deemed anything remotely accurate while omitting links to Hotmail, Zune, Windows Live Spaces, Internet Explorer, MSNBC, etc. I know this reversion will offend people who put time into developing a new template, but please remember that our goal here is to improve the usability of the encyclopedia, not hamper it. -/- Warren 20:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Warrens - please reply to the original "Proposed changes" discussion with your suggestions how to address the issues raised there. Microsoft has huge lineup of products. You think that we cannot have templates without Windows Live Spaces or Zune, but what about SQL Server or Excel. Are they less important ? Since we had an agreement to go ahead with the change, I will revert to the new one, and let's continue the discussion on the talk page to see how it can be improved further. Wikiolap 20:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Why can't we have both? I know the template would be a bit big, but I'd rather the links that were on the template stayed. J Di ^talk 20:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you please paste here the version of template incorporating this suggestion, so we can discuss it. Thanks. Wikiolap 20:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Here you go. It doesn't look too good, but meh. J Di ^talk 21:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree it doesn't look too good, but if the majority wants to have such big template, than fine. I would still like to see the following points from the original proposal to be discussed:

1. Software. This is obviously the biggest area for Microsoft. It is, of course, impossible to list all the product, not even the major ones. The current selection in the template seems random. Next to the huge families of products such as Windows, Office and Server System, there are very minor products such as Encarta, Money and Defender. I suggest to list the product families the way Microsoft itself categorizes its products:

Windows • Office • Server System • Developer Tools • Business Solutions • Games and Xbox • MSN • Windows Mobile

2. Technology. It is really not clear what is technology vs. what is product. Is Active Directory a technology or just part of Windows ? Same about Internet Explorer and Windows Media. Is Play For Sure at the same league as the others ? Why .NET is listed, but not COM etc. I don't believe there is a coherent way to resolve this.

3. Web properties. Again, together with such giants as MSN and Windows Live, there is ninemsn. Why Hotmail and Messenger are separate from either MSN or Live ? Why Xbox Live is not listed as web property, but listed in gaming ? And most importantly, why there is a separate category for Web properties, but there is no category for Office or Windows or Server System. Are Web properties really that much more important ? I believe that since Microsoft itself categorises its Online Services as one product family, we should follow.

4. Hardware. Similar to Web properties - why would it deserve its own line in template. The actual list is a mess. There are some hardware devices such as Zune and Natural Keyword together with software system such as MSN TV and driver such as IntelliPoint. Finally, why Xbox is not listed as hardware ? And what would PocketPC or TabletPC be qualified as ?

5. Gaming. This line is dominated by Xbox. Is gaming so important that it gets detailed info about every version of Xbox, but entire Windows or Office is just one link ! I don't think so.

6. Windows Mobile is missing completely, but Microsoft itself categorizes it as one of product families.

Wikiolap 23:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The original template is fine, so I have no comments on the removals of most of its contents other than "No." SQL Server and Excel are widely recognised as being part of Windows Server System and Microsoft Office, respectively, and those are mentioned. Zune is a Microsoft brand, one that they're pushing pretty heavily. Windows Live Spaces is one of the world's largest blogging & social networking sites -- they claim to have 130 million users, which is almost certainly an exaggeration, but even if they had 15% of that, they'd still be bigger than, oh, say, Livejournal. Regardless, it's a big part of what Microsoft is to some people.

See, this is the problem of trying to represent the breadth of everything that Microsoft does. We could be narrow in our focus and pretend that all they do is write desktop software, but then we miss what fully half of the company is engaged in. That's not good enough for Wikipedia, however. Now quit damaging the template by removing most of its contents, it hampers the quality of the encyclopedia, and I am quite positive that that's not what you're here to do. Okay? -/- Warren 20:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes - I am trying to improve quality of encyclopedia, not to hamper it. I would appreciate if you were answer the specific issues raised in the original proposal, as opposed to simply say "No". I am trying to go by the sources, which is official Microsoft product division page in this case. You are feeling that Windows Live Spaces and Zune are important enough to be included in the template, even though they are part of Online Services (MSN) division and Devices and Entertainment division respectively while SQL Server and Excel are not. Could you cite sources which say that the former two are more important than the latter two. I feel that the coverage in the template should be balanced. And I don't think it will be possible to list all major products - but we can cerainly try - this is why I suggested to putting the new proposed version here for discussion.

Lastly, when the new template was last proposed on the talk page, there was a discussion, although not as wide as I hoped for. There was an agreement, this is why the change happened. Please don't revert without discussion. We could all build our proposed versions of templates and put them to the vote. Would that work for you ? Wikiolap 21:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You want to use cited sources as the determining factor as to what gets included in a Wikipedia navigational template? This isn't article space... we don't cite sources here, nor are we required to follow Microsoft's (current) product divisions. Keep in mind that they do reorganize every few years, and the way they operate their company from a business perspective doesn't lend itself well to sensible navigation on a web page.

Not as determining factor, but at least as a starting point. To me it didn't looked right, that Hardware and Gaming got its own category on the main Microsoft template, but things like Windows, Office and Servers didn't. Don't you agree ? Wikiolap 02:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Our job when building navigational templates is to collate a fairly complete representation of the articles that we've got, and provide usable, easily understandable navigation so that people can get to those articles without a lot of digging. In the last year, I've reviewed this template many times over (the history was blown away a few months ago by an editor unfamiliar with preserving change histories in Mediawiki), and I really don't see anything on there that doesn't belong, except for possibly Windows Defender.

OK, I understand that you have put a lot of work into this template. I am not trying to undermine this work, I am trying to improve on it. I think because you spent so much time on this template, it is difficult for you to see it with new eyes. It's a pity you didn't join the discussion earlier. Wikiolap 02:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Navigational templates suggests creating sub-templates when the main template gets too large. We do this already, which you can see in Template:Microsoft Office, Template:History of Windows, Template:Windows Live, and we could use new templates for Windows Server System and Microsoft Dynamics products.

Yes, I saw these templates. What bothered me is that less important subjects such as Zune, ninemsn, etc show up on the main template, while much more important subjects do not. Putting the structure losely modeled after product divisions at least puts everything on the same level. Wikiolap 02:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyways, I don't have time to submit ideas for a changed template; I think the current one serves its purpose quite well: it avoids the goopy mess that you'll see in Template:Mac OS X, it isn't an epic undertaking like Template:World War I, and is generally easy to read and use. -/- Warren 02:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is where I disagree - I think the current template doesn't serve its purpose well. I consider Template:Apple, Template:Google and Template:IBM to be better structured - I modeled my version after it. I am open to a discussion, but I do not accept position of "Template is fine, don't touch it". Wikiolap 02:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

What Qualifies?

It seems like the main problems are occurring about what qualifies in the template. I propose that we actually discuss these issues in a calm and organized manner. I realize that the way I am breaking these down vastly lengthens the Table of Contents, but it should aid in clarity during the discussion. The order in which I added sections reflects some of the comments above. If your comment does not fit into one of these categories, please add it.

Please, only add discussion to the relevant areas, so consensus will be easier to determine. For example, talk about Excel should be under Office System, and should not be discussed in other categories.

I have added my comments in some sections to start conversation.

Assuming we can all agree to these rules, we should be able to quickly determine exactly what needs to go into this template. --W. Flake ( talk | contribs ) 01:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

For Readability's sake, this discussion has been moved to Template talk:Microsoft/Discussion December 2006

What next

Seems like discussion is going nowhere. User:Warrens who most opposed the changes doesn't participate, and I am not sure how we will be able to make progress. After carefully rereading everybody comments, it appears to me that there are two ways to proceed here:

• To include more things into template to cover things which are not covered well - suggestion of User:J Di
• To create sub navigational templates for things like Gaming and Hardware - this is what User:Warrens alluded to.

I am fine with either one of these proposals, and I am ready to do the work, I just want to reach a concensus so there will be no more reverts. (I also have a feeling that User:Wdflake is going to be OK with one of those). I am not OK, however, with the current state of the template, and I strongly believe that change is in order. How do we proceed next ? Wikiolap 17:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, personally, I'm in favor of a small-ish template. Perhaps we could have bare-bones links in Windows (XP, 2000, ME, 98 Nt, 95), Office (Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook/Entourage), Server System (2003 and whetever else goes there), Entertainment (Xbox, Xbox 360, Zune, etc.) and Teaching stuff (since we didn't discuss it above). Then, in another line, we could have the other main points that we said were needed above. This way, the template is rather small, and can be used with other nav templates that already exist (like Template:Microsoft Office). Any other ideas? —W. Flake ( talk | contribs ) 03:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This is my preference as well. User:Warrens however made reverts with comment "Stop damaging this template", so I guess he is not in favor of it. Perhaps we should do a formal voting on this subject and go with the majority vote. Wikiolap 03:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we're quite ready for a vote yet. Besides, at the moment, it would probably only have two participants.

I think we need to draft out some proposals about what the template should actually say. Here's my first draft. Please note that I am not thrilled with the way it has turned out, but I submit it as a starting point. I tried to factor in the comments above during its creation. Also, to make this page easier to edit, I created the template in my userspace.

What would you recommend? —W. Flake ( talk | contribs ) 05:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I am leaving to vacation, I will add my comments after New Years. Happy holidays ! Wikiolap 21:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Have a good vacation. —W. Flake ( talk | contribs ) 06:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Lawsuits

More Microsoft lawsuits should be linked. Apple, Alcatel-Lucent, etc. Azrael Nightwalker (talk) 13:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Microsoft logo.svg

OMG, what is that??? Do we want to make a commercial promotion here on Wikipedia or what???--Kozuch (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

ie

Ok, I added now the ie. it is one of the most important software from ms. but i want to understand and now explain me why is this template not in alphabetic order (of the items!)?? mabdul 0=* 23:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

xbox.com

Where to put xbox.com? Is it a Web property? SharkD (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Reorganise the template

The template is unorganised and messy. We need to tidy it up, but I'm not sure how. Any ideas? --Meph (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on improving it myself. Here's what I've got so far: --Meph (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

√ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.36.40.3 (talk) 10:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Add Azyxxi to the template

{{edit-semiprotected}}

Please add [[Microsoft Amalga|Azyxxi]] to the alphabetized group12 list of acquisitions in the template. For example:

Thank you. 72.244.204.61 (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done Set Sail For The Seven Seas 304° 28' 30" NET 20:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"Broadband" is just a buzzword

It actually was not a "mistake" but I intended to remove the word "Broadband" from the template for the link to Microsoft Broadband Networking. The word "Broadband" is only a marketing term, it has no technical meaning any more. Sort of like saying "number one" or "leading brand" or "family sized". As far as I know these were the only networking hardware produts of any kind, so it is not really needed. There were no "normal band" networking products. Just like consumer products these days that only come in large, extra-large, jumbo, and king size, no small nor medium. Anyway not a big deal. W Nowicki (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It IS a big deal. Microsoft Networking is different from Microsoft Broadband Networking. Microsoft Networking refers to Microsoft networking stack. Fleet Command (talk) 04:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Microsoft Surface (tablet)

Please add Microsoft Surface (tablet) to hardware prototypes. 203.99.208.6 (talk) 13:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Flight simulator

Why is Flight and Flight Simulator listed under desktop software? Can't see a reason why these 2 (Flight in particular) should be listed. Feels out of place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.163.229 (talk) 12:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Updates to Template

Julie Larson-Green is no longer head of Devices and Studios; that role is currently filled by Stephen Elop. Also, consider adding Perceptive Pixel to Microsoft Hardware and Acquisitions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CloudZ1116 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2015

Microsoft Mobile should appear as "Mobile devices", The same is already for Surface John Silva345 (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. I don't see a "Mobile Devices" section and it is properly listed as hardware right next to Surface. Please clarify exact what you think should be done or even better, mock it up for us in the sandbox. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Please change Microsoft Mobile to Mobile Devices,
Explanation: It should appear as Hardware (Surface . Mobile Devices)
Microsoft Surface is simply mentioned as Surface.
Similarly Microsoft Mobile should be simply mentioned as Mobile Devices. See http://www.microsoft.com/en-in/mobile/
The edit should be as follows

• Hardware
  • Surface
  • Mobile Devices

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.200.95.93 (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2015‎ (UTC)

Not done: Hi. It was very difficult to understand your request because you didn't explain it well, and your web link was misleading. However, I decided that "Microsoft Mobile" is not an article about a device or devices. I changed it to Microsoft Lumia instead.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2015

Please remove Stephen Elop as he no longer works with Microsoft, and all the other executives that have left the company with the recent reforms. 86.81.201.94 (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Partly done: I have removed Stephen Elop. Please be specific as to which other executives may need to be removed and reopen this request. Thanks, --ElHef (Meep?) 17:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Well according to this source the executives are Elop, Penn, Tatarinov, and Rudder. I just took a random article via Bing News so if you'd request a more reliable source, or even a first party one I'd be happy to provide one.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2015

Please add WPC to the list of conferences. --Hoang the Hoangest (talk) 10:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hoang the Hoangest (talk) 10:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Done Bazj (talk) 10:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2015

59.115.39.66 (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as you have not requested a change, but I suspect you are in the wrong place, as this page is only to discuss improvements to Template:Microsoft.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Given the nature of this page, you will also need to reach consensus before any significant changes are implemented. - Arjayay (talk) 08:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2015

Please change Operating systems (Windows · Windows Phone) to Operating systems (Windows · Windows Phone · Windows Embedded)

Also please sort every section, sub section, sub-subsection alphabetically. 170.248.189.79 (talk) 07:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 03:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Explanation on above:

1. Please refer to this article for Windows operating system types: Microsoft product divisions#Windows and Devices

So the below should be done :) Please change Operating systems (Windows · Windows Phone) to Operating systems (Windows · Windows Phone · Windows Embedded)

2. The entries should be in correct order in some cases.

a. Local division should be: Algeria · Egypt · India · Japan · Pakistan (Remove Microsoft from Algeria)

b. Product families should be: Operating systems (Windows · Windows Phone · Windows Embedded) · Software (Azure · Dynamics · Office · Servers · Skype · Visual Studio) · Hardware (Surface · Lumia · Band · HoloLens · Xbox)

Note the change in OS (earlier requested), Software ( see Microsoft product divisions#Windows and Devices) and Hardware (see the link: https://blogs.windows.com/devices/)

Hope u understood and approve my request. Please don't ignore. Please respond in yes or no.

170.248.189.79 (talk) 09:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Hi. I am afraid I am declining your request for the following reasons:

1. This isn't a products navbox. We want less links, not more. (But there are other navboxes for products.)

2. a. Per WP:EGG, there must be an indication that the link to "Algeria" goes to an article about Microsoft, not Algeria the country. For brevity, we've removed "Microsoft" from all other four. But ignoring WP:EGG altogether is not an option.

2. b. Azure, Dynamics and Skype are not product families; they are single products. You can find Azure and Skype under Microsoft Servers and Microsoft Office though, to which you can find a link. And like I said, this is not a products navbox. The goal is to list only top most important ones.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes codename, I agree with most of your points. Thanks for helping out.

But this request is still valid.

Hardware (Surface · Lumia · Band · HoloLens · Xbox) to Hardware (Surface · Lumia · Band · HoloLens · Xbox)

As per the sequence of products in Microsoft devices blog (title bar) See https://blogs.windows.com/devices/

or

Hardware (Surface · Lumia · Band · HoloLens · Xbox) to Hardware (Band · HoloLens · Lumia · Surface · Xbox)

Simply alphabetical

Please implement. Please don't ignore

Thanks

170.248.189.79 (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Er... You need to re-read your own request again! Try placing the writing cursor before "to Harware" and pressing Enter key. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Microsoft Store

I believe that the Microsoft Store article should be added to this template; however, I am wondering where is a good place for the article to go. Thoughts? Daylen (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Daylenca

It is a web property of course. That's where it should go. And if you found the article about Microsoft's flagship shop in NY, it goes under product divisions.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 12:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2015

Please change Product divisions to Product divisions. Explanation is that the article pointed by the same is no longer product divisions but some other divisions. Hence the link needs to be removed. 170.248.189.79 (talk) 06:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Done although not exactly as requested. The section in question needed more than just that change. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Code, I requested to unlink the "Product Divisions". But is not unlinked. Please unlink. As mentioned the article it points is not product divisions..... 170.248.189.79 (talk) 10:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I did unlink it! And I just rechecked. It is not linked. Please refresh your web browser.

Here is the proof: Diff and inbound links to "Microsoft product divisions"

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 11:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: The IP may be referring to a transclusion of this template on another page. If the page is cached it would still appear that the link is active even though you made the change. This can be fixed with a purge of the affected page. The IP can perform this purge themselves. As such, I am changing the answered parameter back to yes. If the IP is talking about something else or is still having issues they can reactive the request. --Stabila711 (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2015 (What is diff between Divisions and product families)

Please change "Engineering groups (Hardware, Mobile), Digital Crimes Unit, Garage, Press, Research Studios, .NET Foundation, Outercurve Foundation" to "Digital Crimes Unit, Garage, Press Research Studios, .NET Foundation, Outercurve Foundation"

Divisions and product families have some entries in common. For eg Engineering groups (Hardware, Mobile) appears in product families also. Either they should have diff entries or they should be merged under same title.

180.188.229.6 (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose (as the contributor who did it)

Hi. Only "Hardware" link appears in "Product families" group; "Mobile" and "Engineering groups" do not. It is a minor redundancy for completeness.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 12:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Turnaround..

I definitely agree with you Code, thanks..

But then

Please change Engineering groups (Hardware, Mobile) to Engineering groups.

Reason: Engineering groups include hardware, mobile and many others..

For same reason you have changed these... Operating system(Windows, Windows Phone, Windows Embedded) to Operating system(Windows) and etc.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.188.229.6 (talk) 13:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

We kept the operating system list short because it is about the company's products, not the company itself, and because we have two entire navboxes dedicated to operating systems. But as for the engineering groups, that's it: They are just these two groups. Having those links is only helpful.

I hope you don't mind me fixing the indentation of your message; that is public place after all. I wouldn't dream of doing it in a user talk page, however.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 13:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2015

Please change "division" and "product families" to "engineering groups", "division" and "product families".

Explanation: What is difference between "engineering groups", "division" and "product families". It appears that they are not mutually exclusive. All these three should have their own section in the template. Within each section all resp entries should be listed.

What does everybody think??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.248.189.79 (talk) 07:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

170.248.189.79 (talk) 10:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Done but not exactly as mentioned.

Engineering groups is almost as same as product families.

Divisions are like manufacturing divisions.

So, only two "division" and "product families" are enough.

Benjohnofbom (talk) 10:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Reverted. Hello, Benjohnofbom. This request has already been filed once and rejected because this is navbox that connects all related article. So, as long as Microsoft engineering groups is a link to Microsoft Corporation-related article, it gets to be listed. One person's failure to understand, unwillingness to do so, willingness to nitpick at words, or even evidence that two article title are synonyms, isn't grounds for a change. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

P.S. FYI, this template is protected so that wishy-washy edits like this (that ignore the presence of an actual article or actual contents) are prevented. If registered users like yourself start ignoring very basic principles, the protection will get upgraded. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Accessories

In the article talk page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Microsoft_engineering_groups#Explanation_for_layout it is mentioned that, Microsoft Accessories is not a division of Microsoft, this is clearly explained in the section itself where it's stated that most of it is outsourced and that only the designs and drivers come from Microsoft

Hence removed. Please revert(with explanation) if incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjohnofbom (talk • contribs) 18:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2015

Microsoft Mobile Oy is not a part of the Microsoft engineering groups, it is in fact a separate legal body that only exists to legally oversee the merging of Nokia's former Hardware and Software units to be merged into the larger Microsoft Corporation, it should not be "engineering groups (Mobile)", but Mobile should stand alone.

42.114.33.55 (talk) 06:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: for now. The template does not mention "Microsoft Mobile Oy" at all. It mentions "Microsoft Mobile". (No "Oy".) Both Microsoft engineering groups and Microsoft Mobile articles say this entity became a division of Microsoft in 2014. (Microsoft Mobile article has a full section on it: § 2014 to present: As a division of Microsoft.) If you have sources that prove your concern is indeed genuine, resolve the issue within the confines of the article first. Then, request this topic to be reopened.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2016

Please change Hardware(...,..,..,) to Hardware(...,..,..,).

Got confused. Please look below

In this template in Divisions section , it is like Hardware(...,..,..,). The Hardware here points to Microsoft hardware. Please point it directly to Microsoft hardware.

Reason: Microsoft hardware is the main article. I understand though List of Microsoft hardware is redirected to Microsoft hardware, it is better to point it directly. I mean when i hover mouse pointer over 'Hardware' in the popup it should show Microsoft Hardware not List of Microsoft hardware.

I hope i am clear. 180.188.229.107 (talk) 02:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. I've struck out parts of your message that was causing the confusion. I hope that's okay with you. FYI, next time, please ask for "bypassing a redirect", then, mention the link name. (In this case "Please bypass the List of Microsoft hardware redirect"). Codename Lisa (talk) 10:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2016

Please add SwiftKey to the list of acquisitions. Thank you in advance. Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

86.81.201.94 (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Done EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2016

Add Xamarin to the list of acquisitions as Microsoft has officially completed the takeover.

I'll even link a source if needed.

86.81.201.94 (talk) 02:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2016

Done

Add Xamarin to acquisitions as it has been reported here.

Add Xamarin to acquisitions as Yahoo! Finance has reported on it.

Add Xamarin to acquisitions, not sure if the other 2 were more blog-like than news sources, so here's the Wall Street Journal.

Add Xamarin to acquisitions, I don't know if the Wall Street Journal is a content farm so here's Ars Technica.

86.81.201.94 (talk) 11:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I have merged four separate edit requests into one. Be aware that what you did amounts to spam. If you abuse your edit privileges in this grotesque manner, you might end up losing it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to edit older requests, and since my computer crashes after adding more than a certain amount of links to one page it was better to do them separately, also I've seen many accounts on Wikipedia that have vandalised articles for years with unjustified content removals and not only have they not only been warned, they were left to do these things even after other users and bots have reverted them doing the same edits over and over again for many times, like several Indian I.P. users (which I suspect is one with a rotating I.P.) that has edited this talk page before and went not only unwarned, but editors like these seem to get away with their content removals if pages aren't frequently moderated.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.81.201.94 (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

You can and you should. Try the section edit link. Always try to put yourself in the shoes of the people who see your edits. It helps a lot. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

And also give me a reason why Xamarin isn't added, many news sources only report on the acquisition when it's announced and rarely go so far as to when the acquisition itself has been completed, by the logic used above we should never be able to add more than half of the companies in the list, and also the Xamarin article itself lists several sources that claim that it had been acquired by Microsoft, if the request gets rejected I'll request it again and I'll post another source.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I did it. Didn't you notice? Your sources were good. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The request still looked unanswered and I came here directly by clicking on "T" on the template itself, I didn't notice but thank you for adding Xamarin. Just usually requests are then answered accordingly if rejected or accepted.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2016

Move Microsoft Mobile away from Engineering Groups, there are plenty of other divisions that would fall under engineering groups and are separate in this template, yet only Microsoft Mobile Oy is listed so either the others should be placed among engineering groups, or Microsoft Mobile should be separated. And my case for this is that Microsoft Mobile Oy in itself is not one of Microsoft's Engineering groups but falls under Windows & Devices.

86.81.201.94 (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Exampli gratia, Microsoft Studios is also a part of this same group.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I just re-read it and see how it might be unclear, at present it looks like "Engineering groups (Mobile)" which seems inconsistent as the Microsoft Studios which like Microsoft Mobile Oy is a part of the Microsoft Windows & Devices engineering group, I'm not sure why one division is listed here while another isn't, so I request for Microsoft Mobile to be separated in the same fashion as the Microsoft Studios are.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@86.81.201.94: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I believe that since Microsoft Mobile is a "multinational mobile phone and mobile computing device manufacturing company,"^[1] it is fine staying under engineering groups. Please find more sources or establish a consensus, thank you. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 11:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Skyllfully: Then Microsoft Studios should also be added to engineering groups as it's a part of the same Windows & Devices division.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 12:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@86.81.201.94: You have a point. Done as per above. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 13:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Reverted. As I said before, 86.81.201.94 needs to learn a lot. Yes, there are lot of divisions and as long as they don't have their own full articles, there is nothing to list. Also there is no such thing as "Microsoft Mobile Oy" anymore. It is gone. And Microsoft Studio is not an engineering groups; it is subsidiary. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I guess that you still have a lot to learn as officially it still exists as I've noted to you in Talk:Windows 10 Mobile as it still is used as a legal holder for copyright and trademarks in new Microsoft products, and the list of engineering groups is in the article itself is:

1 Windows and Devices 1.1 Windows

1.2 Devices

1.3 MSN

2 Cloud and Enterprise 2.1 Servers

2.2 Azure

2.3 Visual Studio

2.4 Dynamics

3 Applications and Services 3.1 Office

3.2 Skype

3.3 Bing

So it's not mentioned independently as one of Microsoft's engineering groups, and it's a part of the same division of Windows and Devices as Microsoft Studios is, like Microsoft Studios is a part of the Xbox Group below Windows and Devices, Microsoft Mobile Oy is a part of the Devices group also below Windows and Devices.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Also Microsoft Mobile Oy is a subsidiary like the Microsoft Studios, it was created due to the acquisition of Nokia's telephone-related assets and had several other divisions below it, sure there was a write off, but Microsoft still uses Microsoft Mobile Oy or some variant of it as here, on their U.S. American website they still use it even for intellectual property as in "21. Intellectual Property The Service, Content and Software are protected under international copyright laws. Microsoft Mobile claims copyrights in its Service, Content, and Software to the maximum extent of the law. Subject to the Terms, Microsoft Mobile retains all right, title and interest in the Service, its Content, the Software and in all other Microsoft Mobile products, software and other properties provided to you or used by you through the Service." So no, it wasn't abolished, and is still used in the packaging of new Nokia and Microsoft Lumia smartphones like the Microsoft Lumia 950.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

None of these matters at all.

Microsoft Mobile is part of the engineering division; Microsoft Studios is not. That's all that matters.

The purpose of the navbox is navigation, not showing corporate hierarchies.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

You still haven't explained why Microsoft Mobile is an engineering group if it falls under the same part the Microsoft Studios, other mentioned engineering groups are Microsoft Dynamics, Microsoft Azure, Etc. but these aren't a part of that sub section of the navigation box either, so it makes no sense as to why Microsoft Mobile Oy is the sole entity mentioned as an engineering division. And your claim as to why Microsoft Studios shouldn't be there was based on the fact that it was a subsidiary so everything above does matter.

And if your definition of engineering group is a hardware division then the HoloLens team should be there too, you haven't even attempted to bunk how Microsoft Mobile Oy is not a subsidiary, and Microsoft Studios falls under the same engineering group as Microsoft Mobile Oy.

Anyhow then I don't disagree with your case and request the addition of Windows Servers, Microsoft Azure, and Microsoft Dynamics between the same brackets as to where Microsoft Mobile Oy stands right now.

Exampli gratia Engineering divisions (Azure - Dynamics - Mobile - Servers)

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Correction Microsoft Servers.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed how Microsoft Azure and the Microsoft Servers are already mentioned.

So I adjust my request to only adding Microsoft Dynamics next to Microsoft Mobile Oy.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: None of the requested additions are articles about corporate divisions, offices or teams. They are about products, which happen to have similar names, for the obvious reason. (These articles don't have any information on corporate divisions.) As I said earlier the primary purpose of a navbox is providing navigation, and we do not subvert that primary purpose for a secondary reason like showing Microsoft internal hierarchy.

Feel free to invite third parties to this discussion.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 10:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Not sure why I'd invite any third party, anyhow Skype Technologies is about a division, and it's listed under the Microsoft engineering groups so you could add that, not sure why Microsoft Mobile Oy is the only engineering group, ¿is that really the only article we have on Wikipedia that is about a Microsoft division?

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 10:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. Skype is now listed.

Third parties can potentially provide a fresh viewpoint, showing the flaws in our arguments that we ourselves don't see. If you feel there is no need for them, well, there is no pressure here. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Regional branches

I'm curious why Microsoft Algeria has "Microsoft" in front of it, I can understand that it could be "the introduction case" where the readers could see that this is specifically named for regional Microsoft divisions, but this would already be obvious by the fact that this is a Microsoft template, ¿or wouldn't that be obvious to everyone? If not then please ignore this post.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi.

WP:EGG requires all links to be self-introductory; i.e. looking at the link alone, one should not mistake the article to which the link goes. Think about it: A person sees the word "Japan" linked. From the link alone, where does he think the link goes? Obviously, Japan, not Microsoft Japan. If people see a list of countries only, they think they are country links. They never click on them and they never find out why they are wrong.

I was a proponent of having "Microsoft" in all links per WP:EGG. But we ended up with a compromise that one link gets to say "Microsoft".

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2016

Regarding the current WP:SPLIT of Windows Holographic and Microsoft HoloLens, I'm not sure if the latter is a duplicate article of if the split hasn't been fully translated yet into the former and the hardware content still needs to be reduced to a mere epitome, anyhow if it's the case that the split was approved then I'd request for the Microsoft HoloLens links to link directly to the Microsoft HoloLens article.

Regarding the article as I couldn't get a response from the editors in question regarding the split I haven't taken any action on those pages yet so replacing the links might be a premature right now.

86.81.201.94 (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Done —Codename Lisa (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2016

Please add Perceptive Pixel to "Acquisitions", a notable acquisition for being the team that developed the Microsoft Surface Hub.

86.81.201.94 (talk) 09:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Done - Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. fredgandt 08:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2016

Please change Hardware (Band HoloLens Lumia Surface Xbox) to Hardware (HoloLens Lumia Surface Xbox) in Product families Reason, Microsoft Band has been discontinued. And this template only contains current items(for eg Microsoft Kin is not mentioned) Winter4928 (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Done — Andy W. (talk) 08:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2017

Please change, Divisions Engineering groups (Mobile*Skype unit) to Divisions Engineering groups (Skype unit)

AND

Please change, Product families Hardware (HoloLens*Lumia*Surface*Xbox) to Product families Hardware (HoloLens*Surface*Xbox)

Reason: Lumia has been discontinued. Since Lumia is last product of Microsoft Mobile, it also implies Microsoft Mobile ceases to exist. Similar was done earlier for Microsoft Band. Hope I am clear in request. Thanks in advance TerencePitt (talk) 06:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Partly done: Hi.

About the first request: Microsoft divisions, even if dismantled, won't be removed. (As a rule of thumb, articles won't be removed from navigation templates just because their subjects are discontinued, disbanded, dismantled, decommissioned, disavowed or deprecated if no other reasons for their removal exists.) Products, however, do get removed from this template because they are excluded from the scope of this navbox as there are tens of others that do list them.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: Marking this request as answered now. All the best, st170e 12:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Archive 1