Talk:Microsoft/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Internet Explorer obsolete

The introduction says "Its best known software products are the Microsoft Windows line of operating systems, the Microsoft Office suite, and the Internet Explorer and Edge web browsers." Should we remove Internet Explorer since it is obsolete and will not be supported after June 15, 2022? Andrewpmk | Talk 22:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

We can add a note that Internet Explorer is going to get discontinued on June 15, 2022 thus making it obsolete after that date. 223.184.77.204 (talk) 12:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I think just leave such detail out of Lead and edit it out on June 2022. IE was a top product for 20 years and remains among ‘best known’, which is all the line is about. If anything, out of the List of Microsoft software, I would consider adding Bing and Skype. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Section on tax avoidance? E.g Microsoft Irish subsidiary paid zero corporate tax on £220bn profit last year

Can I suggest that there is a subsection specifically on tax avoidance. E.g

• https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/03/microsoft-irish-subsidiary-paid-zero-corporate-tax-on-220bn-profit-last-year
• https://www.seattletimes.com/business/microsoft/how-microsoft-parks-profits-offshore-to-pare-its-tax-bill/

Thanks John Cummings (talk) 10:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• Additionally Microsoft board recently appointed CEO Satya Nadella as its new chairman, can anyone update the same?

Thanks

Hello admins

Hi. I am Unibeq. Is it necessary to write the official font that is 'Segoe UI' and create one template space for it? Don't misinterpret me... Unibeq (edited) 09:28 AM IST, 28th August 2021

There is a page for Segoe, and Segoe UI redirects to the appropriate section on that page; do you perhaps mean that one of these should be linked from the Microsoft page? If so, where might it fit? Klbrain (talk) 12:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Question for historical logo

Seattle Times claimed Rick Eiber created logo for Microsoft. We are already collected historical logos of Microsoft, so which one is designed by him? -- Great Brightstar (talk) 04:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2021

In this category: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft#2020%E2%80%93present:_Acquisitions,_Xbox_Series_X/S,_Windows_11, It says Windows 11 is set to be released this Fall of 2021 however I request for it to be changed since Windows 11 has already been released on October 5 2021.

This is the line: On June 24, 2021, Microsoft announced Windows 11 during a livestream. The announcement came with confusion after Microsoft announced Windows 10 would be the last version of the operating system. It is set to be released in Fall 2021.Jkleditor (talk) 10:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC) Jkleditor (talk) 10:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Finished. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 13:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2021

Please revert the current revision, which replaced the Microsoft logo with one without the wordmark. 93.42.69.104 (talk) 22:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

 Already done — IVORK _Talk 00:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

"Text of logo" in this Infobox is redundant

@Zero Serenity: Logo is the place of only logo, note that in the top of Infobox there is the text "Microsoft Corporation" and in the article title there is the text "Microsoft", logoWithText is for when logo is ambiguous, but here there is no ambiguity. I think the attention of reader of article should not be attracted toward some word that is obvious to him and is redundant (there is 3 version of it in that page) because he wants only the logo, also machines that process this Infobox need only main logo, not logoWithText (see semantic web). Additionally PageImage of this article is now File:Building92microsoft.jpg which is an ambiguous building, and there is no meaning conveying from a building to the reader of such article when he/she hover mouser cursor to some Microsoft hyperlink, but a simple logo is clearly more illustrative (the objective of a logo designer is to convey such concept by the simplest way).

By these two reasons, I really think that we should use "text free logo" in the Infobox of this article and all similar articles, also in the template "Template:Infobox company" we should note this comment that "It is better to use a text free logo". Thanks, Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 04:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2022

Please describe the hostage crisis in Arcata from the perspectivw of Microsoft, as well as the CIA "crack-rock scheme", the sound system, the .gov-without-a-country-in-the-URL system, and the automobiles-swarming-me-phenomenn. Thank you. Messiahmckee (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2022 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  melecie  t - 02:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Wifi password hacking

How to wifi password hacking 157.38.137.101 (talk) 06:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Microsoft logo (2012).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

bob

bob the builder — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.37.211.80 (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Computer

Microsoft 103.159.178.95 (talk) 06:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

2021 revenue is incorrect

Looking at the source the revenue should be $168.1 billion instead of $161 billion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sushinred (talk • contribs) 20:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2022

There is a spelling error in the first sentence. The current writing says, "....related services headquarted at the...". The incorrect spelling is "headquarted"; I believe it should be, "headquartered".

Thank you, Rmcguine (talk) 07:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done Terasail^[✉️] 10:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Revenue Is 198 billion dollars in 2022

Please update in revenue session 115.99.39.172 (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Request to split template:timeline Windows

That template is getting long. Should a separate template be created as suggested in the template's talk page?197.244.78.225 (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Who is 'he'?

This sentence's meaning is unclear. The pronoun 'he' refers to more than one person, I think. As such, one has to guess its meaning. "Allen claimed in Idea Man: A Memoir by the Co-founder of Microsoft that Gates wanted to dilute his share in the company when he was diagnosed with Hodgkin's disease because he did not think that he was working hard enough." 69.120.241.110 (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Aerial Microsoft West Campus August 2009.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Microsoft divisions

Microsoft soon announced new ceo mr.Hanzala Kathewadi Microsoft is made up of 3 business unit: Microsoft Productivity & Business, Microsoft Cloud, and Microsoft More Personal Computing which Xbox Game Studios is under.

References

Only established tech company ready for the internet?

The subsection "1995–2007: Foray into the Web, Windows 95, Windows XP, and Xbox" includes the passage: With a few exceptions of new companies, like Netscape, Microsoft was the only major and established company that acted fast enough to be a part of the World Wide Web practically from the start. Other companies like Borland, WordPerfect, Novell, IBM and Lotus, being much slower to adapt to the new situation, would give Microsoft a market dominance.

I'm very confused. IBM WebExplorer, per one of the devs, began development in June 1994 before its Nov 1995 release (according to Wikipedia, though I can't find a source for that, and the article lists a 1.0 version from that Jan). IE similarly began life in summer 1994 before its release in Aug 1995 with Windows 95. Both tools were based on One could argue that the success of Windows 95 in crushing OS/2 gave Microsoft their internet lead by making them both the dominant OS and browser, which was the subject of the US government's antitrust case, but I don't think it's reasonable or fair to suggest that IBM simply didn't act fast enough in putting out a web browser or any internet software.

I'm confused about namechecking Borland and WordPerfect, as well. WordPerfect made, well, a word processor. By summer 1994, when Microsoft was working on IE, they were owned by Novell, which had already been producing all sorts of internet-related software for years including NetWare. They, too, failed in their efforts to take on Microsoft in the OS game, but that's not the same as not acting fast enough. Borland, similarly, made database software, not networking or browsing software. They made databases, spreadsheet software, and software development tools like IDEs. They announced added internet-related features to their software in July 1996, but even then, they bundled third party web server and browser tools. They weren't competing with Microsoft in the OS or web browser business, though they did on office software,

I do understand why this is in the article. I followed the link to the citation and that's what a paragraph in the book read, nearly verbatim. I know that original research isn't a basis for inclusion in an article, but regardless of this citation, as written, this line in the article makes no sense. By way of metaphor, it would read like saying, "Facebook succeeded by entering the social media market before companies like MySpace and Amazon" when, in fact, one company had a contemporaneous product which actually launched first and the other had and has nothing to do with social media. Jbbdude (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

"licensing" section removed

There was a section tacked on the end that was fluff about software developers being able to license MS tools and software, I assume that was safe to remove Gnisacc (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

ADD tipico 87.49.44.117 (talk) 03:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

"M1cr0s0ft" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect M1cr0s0ft has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 11 § M1cr0s0ft until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Minecraft question

Does Microsoft own minecraft? 220.215.94.26 (talk) 04:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

You can answer that question yourself by searching for Minecraft in the article. Peaceray (talk) 05:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

computer

Strikethroughthis line is strike out 125.209.68.66 (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Show picture

Can show picture answer very fast and can answer anything you ask 103.200.34.132 (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Computer

How Will you define microsoft? 119.93.206.229 (talk) 11:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

New cat

Please could somebody add Category:Companies in the Dow Jones Global Titans 50 ? 78.148.152.27 (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Peaceray (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.152.27 (talk) 12:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@ 120.29.72.247 (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

MOS:TIES should control on this issue

I just twice reverted an attempt by User:Graham11 to convert this American English article to British English, especially with regard to abbreviations and initialisms.

There is no doubt that Microsoft is a predominantly American subject. It was founded in New Mexico, incorporated in Delaware, and then moved to and still maintains its headquarters in Redmond, Washington.

Under MOS:TIES, "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation." In formal written English, many style guides (including Garner's Modern English Usage and the Bluebook), newspapers (including all five newspapers of record), and many professional publishers still prefer the traditional "U.S." over "US". Coolcaesar (talk) 05:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

MOS:US begins:

US is a commonly used abbreviation for United States, although U.S. – with periods and without a space – remains common in North American publications, including in news journalism. Multiple American style guides, including The Chicago Manual of Style (since 2010), now deprecate "U.S." and recommend "US".

For commonality reasons, use US by default when abbreviating, but retain U.S. in American or Canadian English articles in which it is already established, unless there is a good reason to change it. Because use of periods for abbreviations and acronyms should be consistent within any given article, use US in an article with other country abbreviations, and especially avoid constructions like the U.S. and the UK.

This clearly tells us clearly that "US" is a permissible style in American English (even in an encyclopedic register) and that, per MOS:ENGVAR, we should generally prefer styles like "US" which are common to all varieties of English. (Were "US" not appropriate in American English in an encyclopedic register, MOS:COMMONALITY, which that quotation refers to, would not apply.) Do you read it otherwise, Coolcaesar?

Of course, MOS:US does allow "U.S." to be retained in American English articles where "there is [not] a good reason to change it". In the immediately following sentence, it gives an example of such a good reason: harmonizing country initialisms such as "US" and "UK", as "U.K." is never permitted on Wikipedia outside of a quotation and we cannot have two different country abbreviation styles in the same article. In this case, the article also uses "UK", so the only way to bring the article into compliance with the MOS is harmonize the country abbreviation styles. Graham (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Just noticed this. I strongly disagree. It sounds like you are interpreting MOS in such a manner in order to find excuses to convert articles on American topics entirely to British English, which is terribly inappropriate. All you will succeed in doing is alienating editors accustomed to writing in American English.

Keep in mind that English Wikipedia is already hemorrhaging editors like crazy. I keep running into articles that have been obviously vandalized in their lead sentences, but no one is bothering to fix them for as long as three, four, or five years because the regular editor base is already too small (probably down to less than 20,000). I've also noticed that over the last two years, Google has begun to deprioritize Wikipedia articles in its search results because too many articles have been overrun with misinformation or vandalism and the existing editor base has been unable to contain the damage.

The last thing we need to do is alienate the users of the single largest English dialect by number of native speakers. The less offensive and more appropriate approach is to provide country names in this article in full as much as possible, rather than convert the entire article over to British English. I'm planning to make those revisions when I have the time, then I will switch this mess back over to American English. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Please! Edit this text in the page of the "Microsoft"!

to edit these things in the wikipedia. KielYam1212 (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Timur9008 (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2024

"On April 30, 2024, Microsoft unveiled plans to invest $17 billion in developing AI and cloud infrastructure in Indonesia. The initiative aims to bolster the country's digital transformation efforts, with the establishment of data centers and partnerships to drive innovation across various sectors, marking a significant step in regional tech advancement." [172]

Change to $1.7 billion not $17 billion. The source says its $1.7 billion. IcarusVI (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Jamedeus (talk) 19:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Microsoft

How did bill gates and Paul Allen come to recognize the gap in the market to fill with Microsoft 103.25.143.157 (talk) 05:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Is that not covered in Microsoft#1972–1985: Founding? Peaceray (talk) 06:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2024

Why not include https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Roberts_(computer_engineer)? Bill Gates considered him his first employer. 2603:8081:6400:42A5:6E1F:A011:E83F:96B8 (talk) 04:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Include where? Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 12:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

It's in the Bill Gates article. RudolfRed (talk) 03:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—41.121.26.174 (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

You haven't said what you think is wrong with the coordinates in the article, and though I've tweaked them a bit, they appear to have been basically correct. If you still think that there is an error, you'll need to supply a clear explanation of what it is. Deor (talk) 01:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2024

On 19 July 2024, A huge cyber outage began hitting Microsoft systems around the world mid-afternoon Australian time.https://www.smh.com.au/national/australia-news-live-cfmeu-fallout-continues-energy-ministers-to-discuss-cost-of-living-20240719-p5juwi.html A massive IT outage caused by issues with CrowdStrike software has caused havoc with computer systems around the world.https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-07-19/global-it-outage-crowdstrike-microsoft-banks-airlines-australia/104119960 Exposethefacts (talk) 10:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Left guide (talk) 08:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SU24 - Sect 200 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 May 2024 and 24 August 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Swagsberyls (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Zq2197 (talk) 04:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

"Tenorite (typeface)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Tenorite (typeface) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 9 § Tenorite (typeface) until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

"Seaford (typeface)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Seaford (typeface) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 13 § Seaford (typeface) until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

"Skeena (typeface)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Skeena (typeface) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 13 § Skeena (typeface) until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

"[..] after they allowed gender expression".

In Corporate Culture, the fourth paragraph ends with "after they allowed gender expression". This should be changed to something like "free gender expression" or "stopped discriminating based on gender expression". Gender expression does not mean minority gender expression, cis people also perform gender expression. Timenzan (talk) 12:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Official name

windows for workgroup 3.1? 216.247.95.214 (talk) 02:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Does our article Windows 3.1 answer your question? It has a section of relevance: Windows_3.1#Windows_for_Workgroups. Commander Keane (talk) 03:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Too many paragraphs in lead

This article contains too many paragraphs in its lead section, making it appear unfocused and inconvenient to read. Maxeto0910 (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Not the case anymore. This thread can therefore be archived now. Maxeto0910 (talk) 09:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Request edit on 3 February 2025

The second paragraph under the section “1995–2007: Foray into the Web, Windows 95, Windows XP, and Xbox” needs a revision.

A sentence is written, “Internet Explorer has not bundled with the retail Windows 95 boxes, because the boxes were printed before the team finished the Web browser, and instead were included in the Windows 95 Plus! pack.” It should read, “Internet Explorer WAS not…”

76.104.10.12 (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for catching that. Schazjmd (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2025

For Reference # 9 , stating Xbox Division is the third-largest game company by revenue, it links an article that doesn't say much. It also links as of Nov 2022, but the article has an Oct 2023 publish date. This line and reference should be removed. Sadnehs (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

The Verge article says: "... the company said at the original announcement of this megadeal that it will now be the 'third-largest gaming company by revenue, behind Tencent and Sony.'" But yes, this could be improved as the citations are in the wrong place (also based on a company statement). Mellk (talk) 08:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I would also suggest that this be mentioned in the body first per MOS:LEAD. Mellk (talk) 08:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: Please use the actual reference you are talking about as well as the citation number instead of just the citation number since the number can change if any reference is added before it in the article. Shadow311 (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done. ✶Antrotherkus✶^✶talk✶ 18:50, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Logo Colour

Hi! I noticed the logo at the top of the header next to the company name is not displayed correctly in Dark Mode. The colours are all wrong and ... darkened. I'm posting this here in case someone with more experience and skills in image manipulation can adjust it so that it displays correctly even in dark mode. Thanks. Ossamahabrouk (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I've resolved the issue for now by simply stopping the logo from inverting colors when in dark mode. It means the logo will have a white background, but I think that's fine. – OdinintheNorth (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done It displays correctly now. Many thanks. Ossamahabrouk (talk) 00:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2025

The section that mentions Microsoft's 50th anniversary might also usefully mention that CEO Satya Nadella indicated that Microsoft has employed a total of 1.6 Million people as of the anniversary. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/satyanadella_microsoft-has-always-been-a-platform-and-activity-7314035074151116800-ASJ_/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericlaw1979 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Usenet

The mention of Usenet is bizarrely outdated. The reference is from 2005, after all. At least a "[needs update]" tag would be useful there. 84.245.120.231 (talk) 08:39, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

"Undisclosed" tag

@Polygnotus:, could you explain on the talk page the specific problems you're seeing? This article is nearly 25 years old and over 5,000 editors have contributed to it. The editor who has added the most text (28%) was blocked in 2006. What specific issues/edits need to be addressed to resolve that tag? Thanks. Schazjmd (talk) 21:31, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

@Schazjmd Oh man the article is very bad.

Some of the content of Criticism_of_Microsoft should be merged back into this one.

For example, the article currently says Microsoft recognizes seven trade unions representing 1,750 workers in the United State as if they are the good guys, but that perception quickly changes when you read Criticism_of_Microsoft#Labor_practices and Permatemp#Vizcaino_v._Microsoft.

It is so much corporate spin and dickriding. There is literally a single sentence in the "Lobbying and political influence" section, and more attention is given to the "Sponsorship" section where we can learn about how they sponsor Finland's national basketball team at EuroBasket 2015, Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT and the Renault F1 Team. A picture of some shitty car was even included.

How can these be some of the most important facts about such a giant topic? Why is there a Controversies section and why is it hidden all the way at the bottom? Compare something like Nike, Inc.. Polygnotus (talk) 21:46, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

@Polygnotus, oh I'm not defending the article, quality-wise. I think one of the problems is 24 years of accumulated factoids (editors often plug in single news mentions without real consideration to the article as a whole). There's a lot of bloat. And I agree that weight is out of balance.

But it seems a stretch to pin that on undisclosed paid editing. And since none of the rest of us know which editor you suspect, we have a huge article with all sorts of different problems and no idea where to start addressing that specific tag. Schazjmd (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

@Schazjmd Yeah that is one of the problems. You can tag an article as an advert, or as needing a rewrite, but often what we want is to say "this article has major problems in these sections, less important problems here and there, these bits are pretty decent and..." but that is of course way too nuanced for a simple tag. So I picked the undisclosed one, but not because others would be less valid, but more because it conveys the message "be careful when reading this article". We do have more granular tags for sections and even inline, but that would take ages to tag and even longer to clean up. So I agree on the problem but I don't really have a good solution (and I believe this one is less bad than some others I can think of). Polygnotus (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

@Polygnotus, I get that. Maybe a combo of other tags (Template:Multiple issues) would give interested editors a better idea of what to focus on and give readers a better idea of the weaknesses of the article? Like a combo of Template:Cleanup rewrite, Template:Cleanup reorganize, and either Template:Cleanup weighted or Template:Undue weight? Schazjmd (talk) 23:03, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

@Schazjmd Tbh do whatever you see fit. The tagger does not have special powers over those who respond to the tag. Its just one of these things where there is no perfect solution so all we can do is pick whatever feels right. Polygnotus (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

@Polygnotus, it's your tag so I'll leave it up to you to decide. I'm not going to place any tags because it would require my involvement in addressing the tags beyond a level that I feel comfortable doing. I have a what I consider a COI, so I just keep an eye on it for obvious vandalism or simple questions on the talk page. Schazjmd (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Seemed to have deleted my thread!

Hey guys, you seemed to have deleted my thread!

Just was asking, if we could change the title of "Microsoft" to "Microslop" to better suit the new modern company Microslop!

Sorry if that offends some of you! Just a reality! ~2026-29313-6 (talk) 13:10, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

See WP:AT ~2026-99321 (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

About Microslop, that term is now a meme but it's not worth enough for a mention despite an entry on KnowYourMeme.

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/microslop --Sd-100 (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Possible need to split this page

The page is at least 200,000 bytes in size. This could cause some stability issues if we don't split it right now. Angrythewikipedian (talk) 07:36, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be split, it needs to be trimmed. The article is just under 11,000 words, and half of those are in the History section which almost mirrors the main article History of Microsoft. Since there's a main article, the history section here should be drastically reduced to provide just a high-level summary of the more detailed article. Schazjmd (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I noticed that there are around a dozen acquisitions mentioned in the History section. Thoughts on removing some of these mentions which are not relevant to other parts of the article since List of mergers and acquisitions by Microsoft covers them? Ash.tahno (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I have tried to trim highly detailed, lower-priority descriptions in History in addition to less notable acquisitions that would be covered by the independent pages. I am not sure if it is agreeable or enough, but it is an attempted start. Ash.tahno (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2026 (UTC)