Talk:Docs.com

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Docs.com 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.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Software: Computing Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software 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.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Low-importance).

Websites: Computing Mid‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Low-importance).

Microsoft

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft 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.MicrosoftWikipedia:WikiProject MicrosoftTemplate:WikiProject MicrosoftMicrosoft articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Again, seriously?[edit]

So far today I've been adding a plethora (over abundance) of sources, citations, and references to a lot of Microsoft related articles and this is a recent article so to some extend I can forgive this, but A LOT of Microsoft articles had no sources and please, please to whomever wrote this when you create a new article please provide third party sources to verify the information, I know that Docs.com is notable because I've seen it mentioned in more than a hundred newspapers, is it really so hard to just add one of them to the references? This article is a stub concerning a recently announced feature so I can excuse its size, but why do so many people keep forgetting to add references to the content? Please add references (I will do it now, but in the future when you write something, cite something). --Hoang the Hoangest (talk) 05:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not confuse "updating" with removing content.[edit]

A common trend I've noticed with a lot of editors is whenever a piece of software is discontinued they will almost immediately remove and/or blank any related content, this is not what Wikipedia is about and this is harmful to the quality of both the content and the encyclopedia in general, so please refrain from "updating" articles by merely removing any notable and relevant historical content, I've spent a lot of time reverting trolls... I mean misguided editors who have removed a lot of content due to this "justification" and I ask of those editing this article, please do not remove the Facebook related content, I thought that this article was new as it looked like a bare stub with no references and just an introduction only afterwards realizing that an editor before completely blanked the original Docs.com article, I will assume this as good faith, but please do not delete content for it simply being not being something that applies to the software today. --Hoang the Hoangest (talk) 09:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Docs.com. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100711063548/http://docs.com/1JIQ to http://docs.com/1JIQ
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100711073016/http://docs.com/1JUK to http://docs.com/1JUK

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]