|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Microsoft article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9|
|Microsoft has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Society. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections on or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.|
|This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, labor, traveled), and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.|
|Frequently asked questions (FAQ)|
Hey, my addition got removed!!
This part of the article is really biased towards/against Microsoft!!!
Microsoft is a very old article with lots of discussion; consider re-reading the passage in question over again before getting upset. If there's still a problem, make a note on the talk page and just let it stew for a month or so; this kind of thing is watched by plenty of people.
Where's the criticism?
It's interspersed throughout the article. Do not add a criticism section; it goes against the style guidelines.
Various online sources say Microsoft's IPO peaked at $29.75 and ended the first trading day at $28, including Microsoft itself; however, the article states it peaked at $29.25 and ended at $27.75, what's the deal?
Sources are conflicting on this. We decided to go with the older published sources.
Why is there a history section when there are already 2 separate articles?
Because according to various comments on featured article nominations articles need to be self contained and at least contain a summary, which is what the history section sets out to do.
Why are there so many references, even on stuff that's common sense? It makes the article hard to edit!
It's due to the slightly controversial nature of the subject matter; what's common sense to one person has often been called into question on this article, so everything - literally - is referenced. Unfortunately, it does make the article rather cumbersome to edit. Such is the nature of Wikipedia.
The page size is really large!
This is due to the heavy amount of detailed referencing with templates, as well as inline comments to editors on certain parts of the article. The actual readable prose size should actually be fairly mediocre.
According to WP:LEAD there must be X paragraphs and there is only Y!
Pay attention to the prose size of the article (not the size when you press edit), it isn't that long. WP:LEAD is general guideline and the gist of it is to summarize everything concisely in the article without teasing the reader about every little detail. It is one of the most refined and tightly written parts of the article.
It isn't comprehensive/the article is really short/it looks like a stub!
This is strictly about the company; generally we don't go beyond a general description about its products unless one is a pivotal point in the company's history as this is covered by daughter articles and simply summarized. We focus mostly on the corporate aspect of the company as those generally don't have daughter articles and are taken care of in articles about a company. What this results in is a comprehensive, heavily summarized article that goes into detail about the documented corporate affairs of Microsoft.
There are no bolded names in Key people in the infobox!
This is really arbitrary and has no standard, so we choose the simplest route for now - none at all.
Even though it's featured, anything that needs particular attention?
Anything else to keep in mind while editing?
Yes, make sure to follow the Manual of Style as usual, especially in regards to the use of Template:nbsp and numbers. Please remember to only make links that are relevant to the context. Also, remember that this is a stable article for the most part, so take care while editing while still being bold. Finally, avoid using Microsoft itself as a source.
|Microsoft is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.|
|This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 11, 2006.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This talk page is automatically archived by lowercase sigmabot III. Any threads with no replies in 3 months may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
|The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:|
Anyone know what the acronym MSFT means.Edit
It is the NASDAQ trading symbol for the company. See https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/msft — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevep001 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Incorrect citation/citation typo #45Edit
Citation #45 Tilly, Chris. "The History of Microsoft Windows CE". HPC:Factor. Archived from the original on September 21, 2008. Retrieved August 18, 2008.
Should be Tilley, Chris, not Tilly. See https://www.hpcfactor.com/qlink/?linkID=4