Re:List of Fictional Microsoft Companies
by walrus01 on Tuesday December 03, 2019 @02:01PM
(#21695411)
There's almost certainly a large enough number of people googling "Contoso" to merit a wikipedia page on its own. Sort of a microsoft-specific (active directory training material, etc) version of this:
Wikipedia’s bar for culturally relevant is wildly inconsistent. In this case, though, there are tons of external references to these names so it’s easy to establish “relevance” as guidelines dictate.
Re:List of Fictional Microsoft Companies
by munchbunny on Tuesday December 03, 2019 @02:06PM
(#21695472)
The page shows up as the top entry if you Google "Contoso". The second is Microsoft's own explanation of what Contoso is. I think that's the perfect explanation if you're trying to figure out what "Contoso" is in all of the random .NET and MS related examples are.
Re:List of Fictional Microsoft Companies
by ramenmeal on Tuesday December 03, 2019 @01:55PM
(#21695347)
Seems like you answered your own question.
Re:List of Fictional Microsoft Companies
by jagged-chisel on Tuesday December 03, 2019 @03:37PM
(#21696440)
Can you explain? Just because the HN crowd finds something interesting, that doesn't automatically qualify it for a wikipedia page.
Per the flag at the top of the Wikipedia page, somebody agrees with you:
> The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. (July 2018)
As a relative outsider to the editing process who nonetheless reads a lot of Wikipedia, "notability" seems to be unevenly judged across domains.
Re:List of Fictional Microsoft Companies
by peterwwillis on Tuesday December 03, 2019 @02:47PM
(#21695938)
You can search for the companies online and find interesting things, like this enterprise database schema for AdventureWorks Cycles: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=438...
But how is this 'culturally relevant' enough to make a Wikipedia page? That's an "I'm amused" question rather than an "I'm flabbergasted" question.