Template talk:Kb

"Microsoft Knowledge Base" vs "Support"
Hi.

Look, dear Ruud, one of the ways in which I respect other people is by not being dense, especially if they are admins; and I believe it is rational to expect others to extend the same courtesy. I think twice before reverting an admin; I think a hell of a lot more before reverting an admin twice in a row, because I do believe they deserve more esteem for their judgments.

But this edit summary is, I am afraid, is too problematic: "we still have an article on the Microsoft Knowledge Base; there is a 'Knowledge Base search' link in the navigation bar at the bottom of support.microsoft.com; I think the KB is just a part of Support" Although everything in it is right, it has failed to factor in the fact that "Microsoft Knowledge Base" is no longer the common name (hence the article title is a mistake) and that the majority of the articles on Microsoft Support and Wikipedia use the word "Support" or "Support article" to refer to the entity in question. (And let's face it, kb is so restrictive I and my colleagues don't use it.) Now, all of the sudden, you create a deviation without establishing a consensus first?

IMHO, this actually is an all-or-nothing case. WP:FACR especially expects consistency in references and adherence to common practice. (Well, not explicitly; but I have been in FAC twice and I know it eventually comes to that.) If a change must occur, it must be a global consensus-based change.

Thoughts?

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Could you please provide any evidence that the "Microsoft Knowledge Base" no longer exists? The Microsoft Support site still contains many references to it and contains content besides it. —Ruud 21:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi.


 * WP:BURDEN. Could you please provide an evidence that "Microsoft Knowledge Base" is still in the official title?


 * Actually, I can. Open every URL in the form . Top of the page reads: "Microsoft | Support". That's exactly how we decided the name for Microsoft TechNet, Microsoft Developer Network and Microsoft Community.


 * I see you've imported my personal message on your user talk page here. Not a nice thing to do. It was personal.


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The navigation pane at the bottom of https://support.microsoft.com/en-us, under the heading Support, contains an entry "Knowledge Base search" to search inside the support.microsoft.com/kb namespace.
 * Some of the article (e.g. https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/894199 "Description of Software Update Services and Windows Server Update Services changes in content for 2015") contain phrases such as "For more information about how to download Microsoft support files, click the following article number to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base".
 * —Ruud 21:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * So, one entry was left during the phase out. This happens all the times in Wikipedia. (Although we are one edit away.)
 * Again, that's probably because they were written before the change. When a rename or phase-out occurs, all the is written before does not automatically change, unless changed manually. Sometimes the volume of the change is so high that it does not justify its occurrence.
 * Tell me: Suppose you didn't know the name of the source. You go to support.microsoft.com. Can you highlight a step-by-step process of logical deduction that a person might use to reach "Microsoft Knowledge base"?
 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 21:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the two pieces of evidence I offered above would lead one to conclude that. The example I offered doesn't seem to be an exception either. If you Google on  and limit your results to the past year you still find hundreds of recent articles that explicitly refer to the Microsoft Knowledge Base. If Microsoft is indeed phasing out this brand name, I would have expected them to issue a press release or notice about this somewhere? —Ruud 21:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I think the two piece of evidence you offered is merely engaging in an informal fallacy; you are giving equal and higher validity to an obscure link at the bottom of a page (an oversight, no less) while deliberately disregarding the bold title that appears on all articles, on top, where the title belongs. A person unaware of the title would not look among some obscure links for the title of the website.


 * And no. Microsoft is not required to attach bells and whistles to such a trifle just because you do not look for the title where the title is usually located.
 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)