Talk:History of Microsoft Office Information & Talk:History of Microsoft Office Links at HealthHaven.com

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the History of Microsoft Office article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

WikiProject Computing / Software

(Rated List-Class, Low-importance)

Information technology portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

List

This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Software.

[edit] Creator notes

I make no assertion about the notability of the topic, although I expect it can be defended easily enough - popular press iterations with a similar structure surely abound - but rather created this to get some of the crufty list-style content out of the main article. MrZaius^talk 21:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for splitting up the long Microsoft Office article. However, I am not sure this is the best move, while I was proposing split into History of Microsoft Office which might be better in my opinion. What about renaming this page to History of Microsoft Office and removing the section "Current version for Windows" as it doubles information with Microsoft Office 2007#Editions?--Kozuch (talk) 10:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there was almost no historical content in this article. Calling it a list of components was much more accurate, as that was all that was moved. There is so little prose content in the Office article that if an editor did wish to expand on its history that they should do it there, first IMHO. MrZaius^talk 12:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)