Template talk:Microsoft

Whats with this??:

Found on the microsoft article, then copied and pasted here and replaced with this template. Appears to be a subst temolate, but for what, and why? Is anything here usuable? - Jack (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

We could merge Microsoft board into this to create a unified Microsoft template.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

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:

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:

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Lawsuits

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

[edit] 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)