Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of acquisitions by Microsoft/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted 13:10, 4 May 2008.
List of acquisitions by Microsoft[edit]
Similar to List of acquisitions by Google, List of acquisitions by Apple Inc., and List of acquisitions by Yahoo!. Gary King (talk) 04:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - a large number of companies have articles created as redirects to the current Microsoft product. So, a number of rows have two links to the same article. I noticed the Symantec article doesn't do this, and I've noticed some of the previous lists (e.g. Google acquisitions) do. I'm not comfortable with this way of reducing red links. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've requested WP:CSD on the redirects. Same goes with the Symantec list, in that those companies will probably not be notable enough to have their own article, besides the fact that they have been acquired by the respective company. Gary King (talk) 10:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All you need is a sentence about the company in the article redirected to. When a company made a product that was rebadged and sold by Microsoft, and we have an article on the MS product, that should be pretty easy. When the company had a technology that got folded into Windows and there is no article on the technology itself, its more difficult, but some redlinks are acceptable.-gadfium 10:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All done. Gary King (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of these are fine, but a few are still a problem. Dynamical Systems Research isn't mentioned in the Windows article that it redirects to. Consumers Software redirects to E-mail service provider, which is too generic, and the para you added is really not helpful there. Blue Ribbon Soundworks isn't well integrated into Direct3D. As I said above, for some of these to be redlinks is acceptable, when you really can't find any information about them. For Blue Ribbon, you must have some information to indicate that it became part of Direct3D. If it was actually part of DirectSound, as I might guess from the name, that might be a more appropriate target for the redirect. I'm impressed to see over 1000 google hits for "Blue Ribbon Soundworks", plus nearly 750 more in Google groups (Usenet). There's certainly readily available information on the net about it. It might take you a few hours to research for each such company, but then you can create a decent paragraph in an appropriate article.-gadfium 21:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All done. Gary King (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All you need is a sentence about the company in the article redirected to. When a company made a product that was rebadged and sold by Microsoft, and we have an article on the MS product, that should be pretty easy. When the company had a technology that got folded into Windows and there is no article on the technology itself, its more difficult, but some redlinks are acceptable.-gadfium 10:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.