Talk:Microsoft engineering groups/Archive 1

A major rewrite for a new reorg at Microsoft
Today, I've made my major rewrite improving the quality of this article. It's a little rough but will be improved as the days go. This article needed a rewrite because it was too out of date. This article wasn't rewritten before the last reorg before July 2013 reorg. There was a lot of history and old stuff that needed to be taken out to reflect the new Microsoft. This article was flagged for updating. So that's the reasoning behind the rewrite. WinMetro (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Windows logo.png
The image Image:Windows logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --05:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Kinect?
Somebody who knows more about the thing than I do should insert maybe two to six words into the section about the Xbox and mention the Kinect, I think it's culturally relevant to warrant a brief inclusion, just couldn't quite think of the right words myself...71.197.152.48 (talk) 18:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Windows & Devices group.
Several sources have already listed new divisions, and the studios group and the hardware group are now one with the operating systems group, also MSN moved from Lu Qi to Myersson. --42.113.73.178 (talk) 06:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Clarification
Let me add clarification to why I re-added the Windows Embedded and Windows Phone sections, simply these 2 families of operating systems have not been replaced by Windows 10 yet, Windows Phone is due to be replaced by Windows 10 Mobile, and Windows Embedded to be merged into the Windows 10 IoT Core, but so far the transition is incomplete and their removal would be redundant, further I wonder why the Outlook.com section was removed, this editor is known to remove large portions of content without ever writing a justification and I really wouldn't be prone to reverting these edits if they would come with a justification, but they (almost) never do and as the Outlook.com section is relevant I restored it, then created a Microsoft OneDrive section and merged them into a Microsoft Office Online section, though from this article's history it's evident that some these services were previously under the "Windows & Windows Live" division, which reminds me Microsoft often moves software, engineers and people from one engineering group to another, mentioning that the division was moved from one group to another is not irrelevant to the context of this article, in fact this is the place where it's most relevant, not too long ago Microsoft Dynamics was an "independent" division, and the MSN was under the same division as Bing and Microsoft Office, also I ask clarification to why the non-product family products from Microsoft Hardware (i.e. mice, keyboards, video game controllers, Etc.) was removed, I really don't want to revert anyone, but giving no reason, or made up reasons like randomly saying "not relevant" whenever you feel aren't valid reasons for deletions/blankings, especially if it really is relevant to the context of the article (omitting Microsoft products from Microsoft product divisions). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoang the Hoangest (talk • contribs) 03:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I wonder if I should put other entities like Microsoft Research into this article?
 * --Hoang the Hoangest (talk) 08:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Retail (Microsoft Store)
Isn't their a retail division at Microsoft?

Daylen (talk) 03:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi. It seems there isn't. In fact, what this article covers is no longer called "product divisions" in Microsoft, because of the same confusion. They are now called "engineering groups". Alongside the engineering groups, there are eight "Business Functions" too, one of the is called "Marketing Group"..
 * Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Possible reorganisation
I suggest instead of just cutting and removing most content that it would be better to reorganize them by year or show if a division moves from one engineering group to another that the move would be noted, Wikipedia is neither a news site nor are we Microsoft's marketing arm to show how their present divisions look like so we shouldn't just carelessly remove content for the sake of "updation". --Cookie Nguyen (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

"COncised"
A user removed historical content giving this non sensical "explanation", this is why I don't think that everyone should be allowed to edit Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a news site that automatically removes all historic references and data because they're simply not up to date and since we should care about the WP:READER this doesn't mean that we should write things as if they were written today for today and ignoring the past, please read WP:NOT before removing any more content simply because it's no longer something that applies to the present day. --Cookie Nguyen (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Microsoft product divisions
Microsoft product divisions has its own article. This is for Microsoft engineering groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjohnofbom (talk • contribs) 18:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

"Microsoft Hardware"
I can't seem to find "Microsoft Hardware" to be a division of Microsoft separate from the Windows and Devices engineering group, in fact the products they made don't seem to be referenced anywhere as being made by different people from the ones who manufacture Surface, Nokia, Band, and Xbox devices. Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

"Correct version"
For some reason someone cut out most information of Microsoft product divisions created this article as a duplicate and then that same person deleted the original page and redirected it here and refuses to let the original one be restored and doesn't give any reason as to why, before reverting please consult the talk page. Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 10:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Addendum This version has 11 sources, only 4 of these are fist party, the "minimalist version" has only 8 sources, 7 of which are first party (by Microsoft, themselves) and this version explains as to which other division some products previously belonged while the other version is a bland list with almost no extra information and might come off as confusing to the WP:READER, if anyone can tell me why the other version is better I'll stop reverting it back to the better sourced more expanded version, but so far the only justification I saw was that "Microsoft product divisions exists as a Wikipedia page" which was redirected (so the text was deleted) to this page by the Indian I.P. user who reverted my edit(s) and that users only claim as to why the other version is better is simply "Correct version" even if I rationalised my edit with WP:SOURCE and that the text is simply easier to understand for readers, if I'm wrong then I'll accept it but the constant changes to this article seem closer to WP:VANDALISM than anything else.
 * Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 11:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:PROSE
The current version (the one with 11 sources and more text) meets Wikipedia's standards more as it fits the rules of WP:PROSE more, please think of the WP:READER. Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 11:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Explanation for layout
IT is clearly mentioned in the link provided here. http://news.microsoft.com/2015/06/17/microsoft-aligns-engineering-teams-to-strategy/

Windows Phone and embedded are not sub groups now.. They are part of W10

Office mobile office online is part of office and etc.

Atleast the table of contents headings should be what they are now. Inner material can always be expanded  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.248.189.79 (talk) 08:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Windows Phone and Embedded are still products produced by the Windows Group (although later branded as Windows 10 Mobile, and Windows 10 IoT, respectively) Office mobile and Office Online were always parts of Microsoft Office, why does this justify removing their entries again? Wikipedia should concern itself with WP:READER and if a novice reader who knows nothing about Microsoft reads the page you keep reverting to they'd basically understand nothing of the structure only the product families but none of the products, regardless of that you deliberately omitted other services like the MSN and gave no reason as to why despite the fact that the section is well sourced, and in your version there appear to be almost no secondary and tertiary sources and references other than a handful which is discouraged at Wikipedia, before reverting again please counter my arguments.


 * As for the headings and tables they are merely lists and don't tell of anything within the groups and making purely lists is also discouraged, even if the content could be expanded upon in the current version the expansion you're talking about it already present it really defeats your own purpose to remove something if you claim to want it. --42.114.33.100 (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * And if I may explain further, the MSN is barely mentioned in your version as there is no history on what group it was a part of before and there's no exposition on what it is or does, most links are first party links from the Indian Microsoft site which is also discouraged (WP:SOURCE), and the article incorrectly states that Windows Phone and Windows Embedded have been discontinued, this is simply not true, they've been merged with Windows 10, but that doesn't discontinue them as they're still supported, the same way Windows Mobile and the Nokia Asha platform are factually not discontinued but depreciated, the section which calls in the existence of "Apps, Media, and Publishing" does not explain which online consumer services there are, just that they exist (again, this is against WP:READER) and unless that section purely exists to generate more traffic for the Indian Microsoft site it serves no purpose, and ironically this problem is already addressed in the current version with Microsoft Office Online which sums up which services are used and developed by Microsoft.


 * The Bing section is basically a very minimal version of the same list omitting more than half of all Bing-branded services, the Microsoft Office section excludes Microsoft Office Mobile and Microsoft Office Online, Microsoft Accessories is not a division of Microsoft, this is clearly explained in the section itself where it's stated that most of it is outsourced and that only the designs and drivers come from Microsoft, the existence of the independent page itself goes against Wikipedia's rules but any alteration keeps getting reverted by people like you, and in the Windows section there were sources explaining that the MSN is now a part of the Windows and Devices product division/engineering group but you deliberately remove it, and you also previously reverted grammar fixes so your intent is as clear as your lack of understanding the English language. --42.114.33.100 (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Merger with main Microsoft article
Unlike the main Microsoft article this article can go into more details as to the organization and layout of every engineering group, product division, and business, also some businesses/divisions of Microsoft aren't engineering groups such as the Microsoft Stores (including the former Nokia Stores), and Microsoft Research, and merging this article into the main Microsoft article would be a violation of WP:SIZERULE, in fact instead of a WP:MERGE the most logical thing would be to [WP:SPLIT the main Microsoft article (like History of Nokia for the Nokia article, or History of Apple for the Apple article), merging this entire article with a mere section would simply be counterproductive in many ways. --58.187.161.153 (talk) 08:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Recent WP:BOLD edits
First of all thank you for joining Wikipedia and wanting to help, but your recent edits were deemed against Wiki policy so I reverted them, if you want to contest them please explain why in the talk page of the above linked page. Now let me explain the errors you've made, the article is a list style article of which you removed the majority of the links to other (relevant) articles and you've added several copyrighted images which may often only be used at relevant pages and their usage should be minimized, in the context of this article they were purely decorative and added nothing. --42.114.35.42 (talk) 13:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Now let me further expand on it, the majority of your edits spoke purely about singular products from the groups and/or brands as opposed to the product divisions (thus engineering groups) as your edits in the Microsoft Office and Microsoft Bing basically reduced both sections to a superficial introduction of both divisions' main products as opposed to the larger products (thus noteworthy for this list) that were listed before, please observe the present layout and compare it to yours, I'm personally a very WP:BOLD editor and like it when other users love to expand articles, but before you remove something please look fist into the context of the article and see if the removal doesn't go against WP:READER. --42.114.35.42 (talk) 13:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The article is better as compared to older ones..
An editor named 42.... has reverted George's edits.., and George is a slow person not to reply on it.

Explanation: Win 10 editions paragraphs also include their predecessors info. Isn't that enough.... Else include all windows families not only NT, mobile or embedded.

Servers and bing sections, few products were listed. George directed it to entire list of products.. Isnt that more appropriate. What is correct. Keeping 4 products or redirecting to complete list of products...

Office section includes all 3 versions of office desk, mobile and online, just to have their titles listed 42.... reverted them?. MSFT never calls its online and mobile version as Office Online and Office Mobile (Office mobile is an app which is kept for older version of Android like upto 4.2. Newr are seperate apps like word, Ppnt etc.)

Also George, I believe no need of mentioning, successor or history stuff of every division over here. In the first sentence you mention MSFT was at some time divided into seven groups... Did u mention those seven? If history, then include complete history. Else every article/group whatever you people call has its own article where every stuff is specified including history..

This is probably my last edit to anything Microsoft... Let this edit wars continue... I will better edit some other articles...

Bye brothers Benjohnofbom (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You are correct regarding the linking to full list articles as this article is missing several, but some reversions I made simply because of WP:NOTNEWS and the Windows section is better fit to talk about what they all have in common (Windows NT) and it has been generally agreed on that Windows Phone is not the same as Windows (despite branding), and the Office part was done properly, but I have to correct you on the fact that Microsoft has never used either name, Office Online is the name Microsoft has unveiled for the merger of the Office Web Apps and the Hotmail suite + SkyDrive, and Office Mobile debuted on Windows Mobile (as Pocket Office) and Microsoft officially uses the name "Office Mobile" on Android, and in the license agreement of Windows mobile devices (in fact in every user agreement it specifically states "Microsoft Word Mobile", "Microsoft Excel Mobile", Microsoft PowerPoint Mobile", and "Microsoft OneNote Mobile"), and we have to follow WP:COMMONNAME as most news sites still refer to this suite of apps as "Office Mobile" (none of this is WP:OR as it's all mentioned in the Office Online, and Office Mobile articles, respectively), and I wouldn't want to discourage you from editing and personally I'm tired of all the edit warring going on in Microsoft articles myself wanting to refrain from it, but to say that the version "George" created was the best is disputable, it included a plethora of images (which you thankfully removed) that can go against Wikipedia's code, and actually left out quite some information. --42.114.35.106 (talk) 13:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Bad edits
Concerning your recent edits in Microsoft engineering groups

Hello there, I left this message for you and everyone else at Talk:Microsoft engineering groups, before reverting my edits again please reply as to why, I'd like to reach WP:CONSENSUS. "For some reason someone cut out most information of Microsoft product divisions created this article as a duplicate and then that same person deleted the original page and redirected it here and refuses to let the original one be restored and doesn't give any reason as to why, before reverting please consult the talk page. Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 10:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Addendum

This version has 11 sources, only 4 of these are fist party, the "minimalist version" has only 8 sources, 7 of which are first party (by Microsoft, themselves) and this version explains as to which other division some products previously belonged while the other version is a bland list with almost no extra information and might come off as confusing to the WP:READER, if anyone can tell me why the other version is better I'll stop reverting it back to the better sourced more expanded version, but so far the only justification I saw was that "Microsoft product divisions exists as a Wikipedia page" which was redirected (so the text was deleted) to this page by the Indian I.P. user who reverted my edit(s) and that users only claim as to why the other version is better is simply "Correct version" even if I rationalised my edit with WP:SOURCE and that the text is simply easier to understand for readers, if I'm wrong then I'll accept it but the constant changes to this article seem closer to WP:VANDALISM than anything else.Sincerely,

Comment, wrong this best version. --42.113.197.213 (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

This version has 40+ sources. So it is better sourced. Every item in the list is clearly explained. like launch date. latest version etc... So i feel this is the best version ever written.... 180.188.229.94 (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, 1. This version has really 45 sources. Therefore it is better sourced. 2. Every product in this article is explained sufficiently. Also every product is sourced correctly. 3. Yes product division history is there. See Microsoft dynamics section. No version includes division history of every product. Hence the current version as of 2nd February is really the most correct version and should not be reverted. 170.248.189.79 (talk) 07:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)