Talk:Microsoft Dynamics NAV/Archives/2012

Merger proposal
I propose merger of all 4 Dynamics product pages into 1 article.
 * Microsoft Dynamics SL,
 * Microsoft Dynamics GP,
 * Microsoft Dynamics AX,
 * Microsoft Dynamics NAV

Since all the 4 products are part of the Dynamics and the individual articles are not elaborate enough, it makes more sense to have one page for Microsoft Dynamics with 4 sections for all the 4 products. Dhshah (talk) 09:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

---

That makes no logical sense. These are four completely different products. Last year Microsoft made it clear that they will remain individual products, and that there is no intention to "merge" them into one product, thus they would be no commonality what so ever, and no logic to a combined article.

In simple terms, if you have an article about Dynamics, then is should discuss the business unit of Microsoft, not the products. David Singleton (talk) 02:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

These products are completely different and even not compatible with each other, so in any case there should be separate articles on them, elaborate or not. In fact, the word "Dynamics" is the only thing they have in common. --IPonomarev (talk) 09:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Merging these articles make no more sense than merging articles about London and Liverpool, since they are articles about similar things (cities) from the same country. While on an overall level the 4 products share the relation to ERP, they are very different products, with different functionality, technology, history and targeting different markets. Mukke (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Merging these fundamentally distinct product articles into one just beacuse they now share some common branding makes no sense - might as well merge it all with Office, excel, access, word and flight simulator as they all appear under the "Microsoft" brand212.50.186.227 (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears Microsoft is combining more and more products under the Dynamics product line. I suggest a main Dynamics section where users can get a brief summary of each product: GP, SL, AX, NAV, CRM, FRx, etc. and subsites that detail out each product under the Dynamics wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdcahill (talk • contribs) 19:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The Dynamics products of AX, NAV, GP, SOL, and CRM are distinct and need separate pages. A Dynamics Suite topic could be created to join them together but there is enough scope in each one to warrant a separate page. Chrisgarty (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to expand on my earlier comment above. Basically the issue here is more the differentiation between the  MBS (Microsoft Business Solution) business unit, and the individual Dynamics products. Much as you could consider Office as a part of The Business Productivity Division, Dynamics is a part of the Business Management Division. There is a definite need for an article discussing Microsoft Dynamics, much as there is an article discussing Microsoft office that article should discuss the business side of Dynamics, its customers, its long term goals etc. But the products are something different, much as Microsoft Excel and Microsoft PowerPoint have their own articles. David Singleton (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Can some one please make a decision on this. I would like to contribute to this article, but we need to know if it will be killed or not. I am not going to spend time working on a Dynamics NAV article that is just going to be deleted. David Singleton 08:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Singleton (talk • contribs)

The articles should not be merged. The merger proposal will be removed as it demotivates article improvement. --Gatesasbait (talk) 12:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Semi-Protected
The page has been protected due to "vandalism" - but if one of the products Microsoft MVP's (most valuable professionals receive this award for the work we do in the community) cannot edit such a page, then who can? And currently the article is really bad and not even including what I would say are the basics. It has an incorrect history listing (PC&C was founded in 1983, not 84) and there are many other things that should be edited. Rgds, Erik Ernst (Navision MVP)
 * It was semi-protected due to excessive spamming. I've removed the protection at your request - please feel free to edit as needed.  Kuru  talk  03:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Older history
The history older then year 2000 is not taken into account at all. These were the years of the character based version of Navision that was used all over Europe, sold by a dealer network. It's functionality could be customised by the same dealers. This could be part of this article, but could also be a new article that is now the redirected Navision. I can tell quite some about the technical side, as I was programming *in* this old DOS-box character based Navision since 1994 until very recently, but I want to have the right place to start. Edoderoo (talk) 08:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)