Talk:Microsoft Project Server

Needs rewrite
Can someone who speaks English rewrite this to make it just a bit more readable? The content is good, the delivery leaves a bit to be desired.Es330td 23:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Needs an update.....although I'm not the guy :-)

merger: PDS
I merged some content from a non-notable article "Project Data Service", without changing it much. If you feel the section sounds a bit strange: I agree. If it's too detailed, or otherwise not appropriate, just remove it.

Sorted as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 14:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Microsoft Project
This article should be merged with Microsoft Project. There is no need for this article fork. I will perform the merge if no one objects. -- Renesis (talk) 06:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree
Well, I'd prefer to create an article Microsoft EPM Solution, and merge in it the three articles Microsoft Project, Microsoft Project Server and Microsoft Office Project Portfolio Server. If no objections, I'll do it. --213.39.162.227 14:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Disagree
Micrsoft Project is a client software that runs on the desktop, while Microsoft Project Server is a standalone Project Management server. The two are very different products. For instance Microsoft Project will cost $599 to single installation, while Microsoft Project Server can cost more than $50,000 for a single installation. People searching for Microsoft Project are looking for a Project Management solution while people searching for Microsoft Project Server are looking for a distributed enterprise wide project management solution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.243.234 (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree - Project server is a whole new ball game compared to MS Project Client Edition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.154.32.199 (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Project Server should be separate from Project - and rolled into the global SharePoint article hierarchy. Christopher G Lewis (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Project Server should be separate from Project -- Server is sort of a Sharepoint skin, and Project is sort of an Excel skin. Access and hosting is separate -- on a mainframe and can access server without Project. Functionality is different focus entirely, for multi-user collaboration so it's more about permissions and categories, and transferring from Working database to Published database. I could see it as a subsection for Sharepoint, but think it's better as a separate article. Markbassett (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The products are not the same. The purpose of project server is not project management, but programme management. It would be better off being called that really rather than Project server. It's not just project files stored on a server. Deanb61 (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Kept the rewrite and link, but not as cite
I've left the simplifying language but put back the two blogs cites about MSPS 2013 improvements since they were reviews, moving the link to Technet page to See Also since it is a refereence page for the product, not a review that gives the conclusions the sentence is describing. Markbassett (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Sections
I see some url deleted a section "Overview" -- I think it was better with the intent of the section made explicit and the amount in lead area much shorter so have undone that. Felt I should start a Talk to explain and place for any other thoughts as to sections. Markbassett (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

References wanted (was Drive-by tagging )
I see tags added to improve refs and summary, but not by someone involved or putting any further description of concerns in TALK. So I'm discounting it as a casual drive-thru tagging with no evidence of actual evaluation like reading took place, and also without actual evaluation concerns it is difficult to resolve such a generic area-of concern or discuss the validity of the unstated.

Instead I'm left with no option but inserting my own evaluation for these topics :
 * Lead too short -- incorrect, deleted -- the tag poster did not make the tag-mentioned TALK; and the lead *does* adequately summarize the article topic and more vital parts of the content.
 * Refimprove -- correct, specified as follows -- there should be at least one cite for every section, and sections Overview and 2007 lack any cite.

Markbassett (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)