Talk:Microsoft Office 2013

Welcome to the discussion!

Thanks for joining us for the Office 2013 discussion. If you have questions or comments, just click the "New Section" link on the top right corner. Also, if there are errors, things need changing, or anything else, this is the place to bring them forth. --NazmusLabs (A small part of a bigger movement to better the world!) (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Windows Vista support?

Will Office 2013 support Windows Vista Service Pack 2 with the Platform Update? (MazaG20 (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC))

Release date & compatibility

When is this actually coming out? And since I absolutely need to use Word for my work and was just about to buy 2010 when I get the money, do I pretty much lose my money if I do so? Are the file types compatible, or does the 2013 set a new standard again which forces me to buy that too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.157.155.247 (talk) 07:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Office 365

Office 2013 will support cloud services. You can take a Office 365 license. Can somebody write this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.80.124.63 (talk) 10:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The article currently states that the only editions are those 3 retail or OEM products and Office 365. That doesn't sound right because it doesn't match Office 2010. What information is available about Open Licensing editions? In Office 2010, their "standard" copy comes with Publisher and costs a lot more than retail standard for example. Is 365 the only alternative for businesses and they're removing OL options completely? (not likely) or will an OL set of editions be released? Whether the answer to that is known, unknown, or actua details about those editions are known, that information should be stated somewhere. VHCIT (talk) 17:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)VHCIT 11/12/12

Office 2013 Preview Released

Given the release of the public (almost) release, would someone be able to upload screenshots of the 4 major applications (Word, Excel, Powerpoint and Outlook) as in the office 2007 ans 2010 articles? If no-one else can, What would be the limitations on uploading some myself? NotinREALITY 08:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Microsoft has been calling this Office 365.Greg Heffley 20:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware that Microsoft have been calling this Office 365 but the same core programs remain- Word, Excel, PowerPoint, OneNote. I think these screenshots need to be added so users can see what they look like. I've tried to upload them but they have been removed- Why?? (BenBen1234 (talk) 14:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC))

That depends on where your uploading it to. Commons doesn't allow "non-free" images. Apparently, screenshots are considered "non-free".Greg Heffley 22:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, yeah, I am uploading them to WikiCommons. Is it possible for a work around?? (BenBen1234 (talk) 19:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC))

Mac OS support

What about Microsoft Office for Mac and OS X? This is not yet mentioned in this article. 62.203.244.182 (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

According to the FAQ (http://www.microsoft.com/office/preview/en/faq), a Mac version will come out at the same time as the final Office 365 versions. We'll see. --72.54.190.90 (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Editions? Or April's fools day joke?

Hi.

The editions section of this article is very funny: It compares the editions of Office 365 instead of Office 13!

Please feel free to let me know if it is the new consensus, so that I can start listing the editions of Windows 8 in Linux Mint article! But serious, today is 21th of November, not April the 1st.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a tough one to call, as although I would personally consider it Office 365, Office 13 is being offered as a subscription service as well.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I think a slight correction is needed: "Office" is being offered on a subscription-based basis, not "Office 13". The subscription-based service is called Office 365. (The number 365 is obviously equal to the number of days in a year.) The perpetually licensed one is Office 13. You might, of course, mention that "Office 13" may collectively refer to members of Office family with version number 13. That would be true, except the term "edition" would be completely nonsense in that context.

But We digress. That is not the problem. The problem is that Office 13 editions are not compared at all, while all of a sudden, out of nowhere, without enough context, an Office 365 is brought into this article!

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 09:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Office 365 is an online subscription suite which works with the latest version of Office Apps, Office 13 is a desktop installable suite! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.245.189.166 (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Finding 'Help -> About' in Office 13

Office 13 has changed the way the 'About' screen is surfaced. This page contains valuable information such as the ProductID, Version, and bitness of the version of Office you are running.

When in an Office Application File -> Account (may be 'Office Account' for certain Office 2013 apps like Outlook) and look for the large button on the lower right hand corner 'About [Office App]'.

Bigsal1968 (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Retail editions locked to the first PC they are installed on

This article doesn't mention the change that for many may be the most disappointing:

If you install a retail edition of Office 2013 and later upgrade to a new computer, you can't uninstall Office 2013 from the old computer and install on the new one. Instead, your copy of retail Office 2013 is forever locked to the first PC you installed it on. If you upgrade to a new computer and want retail Office 2013 on it, you have to buy another copy of retail Office 2013.

What happens if your computer with retail Office 2013 dies, is stolen, etc.? Microsoft hasn't yet said as far as I know.

Within a few years when Office 2013 is replaced by the next version, and Microsoft no longer offers 2013 either as retail or as subscription, the only way to get Office 2013 may be to buy an old computer with retail Office 2013 installed on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greglovern (talk • contribs) 21:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi.

Could you please give us your source? I'll make sure it is included in the article if you did.

In the meantime, it wouldn't be anything new. Almost all retail Microsoft products are like this, even Windows. Product deactivation is never provisioned. Usually, people have to call a Microsoft support representative.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 08:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

My source is the Office Watch article "Office 2013 prices double and beyond", and their source is the Office 2013 License Agreement, which says that the retail license is "permanently assigned to the licensed computer" and "You may not transfer the software to another computer or user."

Greg (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I've done it several times with retail copies of both Office and Windows. If it's been several months or so since the last install, the activation on the new computer is automatic, in my experience. It's fine with Microsoft as long as you comply with the license agreement (only have it on only 2 computers, one desktop and one mobile, both used only by you). Also, it's definately new to the License Agreement; the statements I quoted above are not in the Office 2010 retail license agreement.

OEM licenses -- the licenses you buy at a discount bundled with a new computer -- do have that restriction; they are locked to the computer they are sold with. But it's the retail license agreement that is at issue here, not the OEM license agreement.

Greg (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Lisa,

I see that you've removed my addition of this information, though I have no idea what you mean by "Out of context and written like a frightening propaganda". Can you please include this information in the article as you said you would?

This change to the Office retail licensing terms is bad news for (a) customers who prefer to save costs by skipping some upgrades, (b) customers who prefer to wait for a while until upgrading (with Office 365 they won't be able to wait), and (c) Office add-in vendors who need to maintain backward compatibility with older Office versions (if they buy Office 365, then once the next version goes live they won't be able to test in Office 2013 unless they keep an old computer around just for that purpose, and later another old computer just for the next version once the version after that goes live, etc).

Excluding this information on this page is effectively propaganda in favor of Microsoft. Many affected buyers won't have any knowledge of the restriction until they find to their great surprise and disappointment that they can't transfer their $400 retail Office Pro license to their new computer, as they had been doing for decades with all previous versions with Microsoft's blessing.

Greg (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Greg

I have already promised you that when you supplied a source, I will include this information in the article. So, please trust me and relax. I had sent your source for a third opinion. The opinion came. I will add it to the article shortly.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 18:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done Hello again, Greg

It is now in the article; I tried my best to stick to neutral point of view principle of Wikipedia, but if you are not satisfied, insert "{{rfc}}" at the top of this discussion or request a third opinion in WP:3O. This will prompt someone else to attend to the discussion.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Lisa,

Thanks, but I think your addition is not in proportion to the impact the change will have on many people, and to how surprising the change is. If I had read the page as it is now without knowing about the change, I might assume the author had simply confused retail license terms with OEM license terms. After all, the new retail terms are essentially the most restrictive OEM terms though at retail prices.

Given that the purpose of this page is to inform readers about Office 2013, and that readers go to this page looking for information about Office 2013, I think a change in Office 2013 that many will find very surprising and impactful ought to be given a level of prominence in the article reflective of that level. I think this is covered by the Wikipedia principle of giving "due weight" in neutral point of view. As it is now, the article describes some changes more prominently that are not as significant as this change.

At this very moment, people are paying full retail prices for editions of Office 2013 that they fully expect to be able to transfer to a new computer someday, as they've always done in compliance with the license terms. They are in for a rude surprise when they get that new computer and try to install their retail boxed Office 2013. This article ought to do a bit more to convey the important information that will help them.

Greg (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Like I said, you can request another review at WP:3O or insert {{rfc}} at the top of this discussion to have another person review it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Does Click-to-Run 2.0 not cover retail versions as well?

http://blogs.office.com/b/office-next/archive/2012/08/27/click-to-run-and-office-on-demand.aspx (see "Uninstall" which performs deactivation).

-109.67.170.81 (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, go to that link and search on "Uninstall". See the image after the last instance. It's clearly referencing Office 365 with 5 licenses. It shows 2 computers licensed, with links to deactivate them, and 3 more available installs. All of that is allowed by the Office 365 license, so it makes sense that Click-To-Run would reflect that. But there is no reason to think that Click-To-Run would allow deactivating Office 2013 retail licenses, given that the license agreement does not allow it.

Greg (talk) 05:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hi Greg and Lisa. Here is what I think.

1. If the basic assertion is correct (MS Office 2013 has a licence which is locked to the first computer you activate it on), then this deserves mentioning in the article, and to a greater degree than the passing mention made by your recent edit, Lisa. From a consumer POV, it's a pretty big deal. Whereas a licence like that might be considered within the realms of fair and reasonable in the case of OEM, it would not seem very fair to install the product, accidentally drop a piano on your laptop the same day, and then find that you need to make a new purchase in order to install the product on your spare laptop. It possibly breaks very significant new ground if MS have introduced such a licence.
2. The material needs better sourcing. Office Watch appears to be an anonymous private website, AFAICT. That means it falls under WP:SPS and is probably unusable.
3. It would be good to make sure that the claim is correct. It looks like a fair reading of the licence terms, but that's not always a 100% reliable guide (the interpretation would seem to go against WP:OR). I've tried googling but wasn't able to find any real iron-cast sourcing. However, on the Microsoft consumer forums, somebody posted an email, supposedly from Microsoft support, saying that it was indeed allowed to transfer the product from one PC to another. There were also some suggestions that the licence terms do mean what they appear to, but that they do not apply in significant markets such as the EU and Japan. What we need is very clear, authoritative sourcing about how exactly the licence should be interpreted.
4. If you don't accept the above, please note that third opinions are not binding, and you are free to choose another means of dispute resolution instead.

Thanks. Formerip (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Is this the appropriate place for further comments on this? Apologies if it is not.

I tried to find a better source today and was not able to. I chatted Microsoft support today and asked about it. "Matthew" said that retail Office 2013 IS transferable to another computer, and would just require phone activation instead of web activation. I asked him if he could point to any documentation of it being transferable, and explained that it contradicted the license agreement. He asked where I had seen the Office 2013 license agreement. I pointed to the Office Watch page. He said he couldn't comment on other websites. I asked if he had access to the Office 2013 license agreement, and it turned out he had no way of seeing it. He explained that there was nothing he could do until the license agreement was available on the microsoft website. So it seems this will have to wait for that.

Also, Office Watch probably got that license agreement from the public beta. It may be that the license agreement in the beta was incorrect, and the final version has a corrected license agreement. If anyone who reads this has retail Office 2013 installed, it would be great if you could check it and comment here.

Greg (talk) 03:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, this is the right place to address this issue, but I am afraid I don't have Office 2013 retail yet. I'll notify WikiProject Microsoft and WikiProject Software; I hope someone has. In the meantime, if you think the source is problematic, I am removing the existing statement (but feel free to revert me if I have misunderstood.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I remember the Public Beta had something like that, but I've yet to get the retail version. I've just requested a copy of the agreement from Microsoft, so we'll see what that brings. drewmunn talk 12:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm still waiting for a copy of the license agreement, but I decided to fill my time talking to Microsoft. I chatted with "Alice" (I'm sure there's only one person, and they choose a name when you open the chat window), and asked her about transferring. Her replies are as follows:

  I would like to inform you that you can transfer the license to another computer. However, you can uninstall the software from one computer and reactivate the software on another computer.

So I asked what would happen if my machine broke, and I wanted to install it on a replacement her reply was:

You can still install the software as the computer is broken, the license is considered as unlicensed software.

So it seems (at first glance) that the license acts the same was as it always used to. It's entirely possible that someone just wanted to pore over the EULA and find something radical to vent about. I can't find any other news agency online that makes the same report, unless they're referencing "a discovery by office watch", which usually points to thin-on-the-ground evidence. Anyway, I've saved my conversation so I can see how it matches up to the EULA when I get my hands on it. drewmunn talk 12:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• Update #2: The copy of the retail licence they've sent me is the same as the one on office watch. However, if you read it carefully, I come to a conclusion different to that of office watch. Under our license we grant you the right to install and run that one copy on one computer (the licensed computer). I read that as "We give you the right to install on one device, and we'll call that the licensed computer". You may not transfer the software to another computer or user. I read that as "You can't put it onto another computer, you must use it on the licensed computer". That's the same as any other product Microsoft sell, and most other manufacturers. It's saying that you can only use it on the licensed computer. Nowhere does it say that the licensed computer can't change. As Alice said to me above, if the computer is broken, it's unlicensed. Therefore, we can assume that licenses move around with the software; you just can't move computer without moving license. All that means is that you can't install it on more than one machine at the same time. I use a similar clause in my EULAs, but it's worded clearer than that. I believe it's written like that in the 2013 EULA to cover the differences between 2013 and 365; on 365 you can have it on a lot of machines. Anyway, this proves nothing concrete, apart from putting office watch's conclusion into doubt; I believe that we could probably class office watch's article as OR on their part. Also, I'm not entirely sure they're notable, are they? drewmunn talk 13:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

So, it seems likely that the licence is not transferable between machines, but if you de-register on one machine and then re-register on another, Microsoft do not consider that to be technically a "transfer".

It's still more restrictive than previous Office licences, which usually allowed you to run the software on more than one machine. So that could be mentioned in the article. But it would need a reliable source.

Also outstanding is the issue of whether the licence terms are the same worldwide. Formerip (talk) 14:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Basically, yes. Although de-registration is an implied action; if you were to stop using one computer (if it broke for instance), then you've unlicensed it automatically. The license agreement itself has separate sections for other countries/user types (Japan, Canadian Forces, Military Appreciation, Student, and Home User), along with the phrase The laws of the state or country where you live govern all claims and disputes under this agreement, so I'm assuming it's the same worldwide; if it were different, they'd not include the country-specific sections. Also, there's a clause that reads If there is a geographic region indicated on your software packaging, then you may activate the software only in that region. You must also comply with all domestic and international export laws and regulations that apply to the software, which include restrictions on destinations, end users, and end use. drewmunn talk 14:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I see two problems with these conclusions:

• First, I believe that uninstalling from one computer and then installing on another is precisely what Microsoft has always meant by a "transfer" of a license. Installing on multiple machines without uninstalling any of them is not what Microsoft calls "transferring" of the license. That's either called just using your license, if your license is valid for as many computers you install on -- or piracy.
• Second, if the released eula is the same as the public beta eula as posted at Office Watch, then the relevant verbiage is identical for OEM licenses (see further down in the license agreement for the OEM section). But OEM licenses have always been pointedly non-transferable, i.e. you are absolutely not allowed to uninstall from one computer and then install on another (that's the main reason OEM licenses are cheaper). So if your interpretation is correct, then it would follow that OEM licenses are also now tranferable(!), which I think is very highly unlikely to be the case.

Assuming that the eula Microsoft sent you is in fact the released one and not a beta one sent to you by mistake, I think we clearly have a disconnect between what the retail license agreement says and what the Microsoft chat representives told both of us.

I'm concerned about this scenario: Someone pays ~$400 for a MS Office Pro 2013 retail, because a Microsoft chat representative told them they would be able to transfer it to another computer. A year later, they upgrade to a new computer, uninstall Office 2013 from their old computer, install it on their new computer, and try to activate it -- only to be told that they can't, and that they should have known they wouldn't be able to since the eula clearly says so, and that their chat conversations are not legally binding but the eula is, so the eula wins.

Greg (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Having checked, the OEM seems to have similar terms to the Retail (I was sent both), so it does seem a little confusing. I'll pore through them both tomorrow to see what differences I can come across. At first glance however, they seem pretty much identical as far as the sections in question are concerned. I may contact Microsoft through a more official channel (they must have a press department), and put the question to them in writing. Hopefully they'll be able to clear it up with someting solid. I think it's all haze put in in an attempt to make you pay more. drewmunn talk 21:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The Microsoft Software License Agreement > Here is very clear on the matter.

Retail License Terms

How can I use the software? ... Under our license we grant you the right to install and run that one copy on one computer (the licensed computer) ...

Can I transfer the software to another computer or user? You may not transfer the software to another computer or user. You may transfer the software directly to a third party only as installed on the licensed computer, with the Certificate of Authenticity label and this agreement. Before the transfer, that party must agree that this agreement applies to the transfer and use of the software. You may not retain any copies.

You may not transfer the software to another computer or user

I think that is clear cut. SimonBramfitt (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Simon, that's the same text as in the Office Watch link, but this is a link to Microsoft so I believe it qualifies as a reliable source for Wikipedia under the principle of Self-Published Sources As Sources On Themselves.

To FormerIP's 3rd point, it seems to me the source is clear enough that we can quote it without wandering into interpretive territory.

I think this gives us enough to try again, so I will try again now. If anyone can get an official statement from Microsoft on why their chat reps give us information that contradicts the retail Office 2013 eula, I look forward to reading it.

Greg (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I've posted it; let me know if there are any problems.

Greg (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I chatted another Microsoft chat representative and asked about it, referencing the link to Microsoft. "Kirk" explained that owners of retail editions of Office 2013 are NOT allowed to uninstall from one computer to install on another computer. I think it's appropriate here to post the relevant part of the chat conversation:

Kirk: I was able to open the link. May I know how may I help you on this?

Greg: Can you help me understand the meaning of these two statements in the "Retail License Terms" section:

Greg: "Our software license is permanently assigned to the licensed computer" and:

Greg: "You may not transfer the software to another computer"

Kirk: Okay.

Kirk: I would like to inform you that Office 2013 Professional has a single license. Once you install it on the computer, you cannot transfer any longer the software.

Greg: Thanks, that's what I thought it meant. Now, I'd just like to make sure I understand what that would mean in an example scenario:

Kirk: You are welcome. Thank you for verifying this with us.

Greg: Suppose I bought a retail edition of Office 2013 Professional, and installed in on my computer. Then, a year from now, suppose I buy a new computer. If I understand correctly, I would NOT be allowed to uninstall it from the first computer and then install it on the new computer. Am I correct in understanding that?

Kirk: Yes, you are correct on that, Greg.

Greg (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't get any clearer, does it? I'll shoot of an email to Microsoft's press department this morning and see what that brings. drewmunn talk 07:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 December 2012

To my thinking,

|released = {{Start date and age|2012|10|05}}<ref name="RTM date" />

should say

|released = {{Start date and age|2012|10|11}}<ref name="RTM date" />

as the source cited is a blog post that clearly self-identifies as October 11.

I don't have enough edits to my name to perform the edit myself, so if someone could do it for me, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! Mathieu ottawa (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for letting us know.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 06:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Screenshot

Please refer to Talk:Microsoft_Office#Screenshot for the screenshot problem.

Thanks,
Malikussaid (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Visio and Project status in Office 365

Hi.

I couldn't find any source that say Visio, Project and Designer are part of Office 365 suites so I changed their comparison table entry to "No". (Visio is individually licensed for Office 365 but we already have a "yes" in that column.) But if I am wrong and you know a better source, please feel free to correct me and include the new source.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Removed features problem

The Removed features includes features that have only been modified. The functionality may still exist (perhaps with a workaround).

Example: can't insert 3d cone etc. in Excel. Per http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc178954(v=office.15).aspx (the link at the top of the Removed features section), you can still insert a 3d rectangle, then change the shape to a cone.

Another example: Outlook no longer allows import/export to a file. Per http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc178954(v=office.15).aspx again, some specific file format options have been removed, but users can still export to the (proprietary) PST format as well as the nearly-universal CSV. Some of the removed file types included Microsoft formats, typically Office 97-2003 formats.

I use the trial version of Outlook 2013, and can confirm that Import/Export still exist as functions. 8.29.144.194 (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)a wandering wikipedia rubbernecker

 Done Nice find. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Office 365 University

Looks like there's a version for uni students that's $80 for four years, renewable for up to eight years, that includes both a Mac and Windows license. 70.75.68.124 (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

That's really more for the Office 365 page, not this one. drewmunn talk 14:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The "Locked to One Machine Forever" restriction is critical and needs to be mentioned in the lede

From the perspective of news coverage by reliable sources, *the* most discussed new attribute of the retail version of Office 2013 is that it is locked to one machine forever. In the Wikipedia article, however, this critical fact is buried as deeply in the article as it is in Microsoft's licensing agreement. The article is like a review of "Our American Cousin" that casually mentions Abraham Lincoln's assassination somewhere in the middle. Both I and one other author (at least) have added material in a prominent place on this absolutely essential aspect of the retail product, but it has been deleted with the comment that the fact was already included - deeply in the article, buried in a list somewhere. I don't want to get into edit wars on this; what's the formal process for requesting arbitration on this issue? I see that there was already a Third Opinion in a previous comment that said much the same thing, but was ignored: "[T]his deserves mentioning in the article, and to a greater degree than the passing mention made by your recent edit, Lisa. From a consumer POV, it's a pretty big deal." Barpoint (talk) 17:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

 Already done

Hello. It is already mentioned. And there is already a talk page discussion above this one. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Not Already Done.

No, it is NOT already mentioned in the lede. Please read what I wrote. The "locked to one machine forever" mention is a brief one buried deeply in the article. My suggestion (and that of other editors) is that this critical fact be given more prominence. To quote again from the Third Opinion you ignored, "[T]his deserves mentioning in the article, and to a greater degree than the passing mention made by your recent edit, Lisa. From a consumer POV, it's a pretty big deal." Barpoint (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello.

My friend, there is something you should know: Overtly sensational behavior, like what you doing here, is not welcome in Wikipedia. Please cool off and look properly at what you are doing: First, I never said "lede" or "lead". I said it is already in the article and it indeed is there. Second, there is no call for disrupting the maintenance system by calling an RFC for something that is already discussed and approved. Third, we have a Manual of Style about lead section that says what should be in the lead and what should not be.

What you have to do is to calm down, look properly at the article to see for yourself that I am telling the truth, and then read the discussion above. If you intend to make any change to that section in the article, please discuss it first; because Wikipedia works based on the consensus and there is already a consensus. Just be patient and everything will work out faster than you'd expect.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 05:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Codename Lisa: I am hardly being "sensational." The consensus - based on earlier discussions on this page and a Third Opinion above - is that the "locked to one computer forever" issue deserves more prominence than it currently has in the article. My RFC specifically stated that this critical point should be mentioned in the lede. Your followup that this was "Already done" (an exact quote) is simply not true. The fact that it's buried somewhere in the article skirts the whole issue that I (and others) have raised. And you have reverted changes by other editors that gave this fact more prominence.

To quote from the Manual of Style about lead section that you referenced, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." To judge from news coverage, the fact that Office 2013 is locked to one computer forever is pretty clearly one of "its most important aspects." In fact, typing "Office 2013" into Google News results in over 50 articles on the "one computer forever" issue, at the very top of the results. Articles discussing any other aspect of the product are somewhere down the page. Barpoint (talk) 06:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello. You are repeating your previous statements and still there is no opposition to them. Even thought you once again got carried away and misunderstood me about MOS, until this moment there is no oppositions against you. You had full support even before starting this fuss and still have it. So, since everyone agrees with you here, may I ask bluntly: What the hell are you waiting for? Happy editing! Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I did make such an edit. You promptly reverted it. As you had reverted another editor's similar addition less than a day earlier. But don't worry; I'm done. Happy reverting! Best regards, Barpoint (talk) 07:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello again.

Before you start editing, one important point: You embellish things a lot in your message. Don't do that in the article. First, when news agencies focus a lot on something, in Wikipedia, we often disregard it completely. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Whereas they rely on shock and awe for a living, we have a policy of neutral point view which mandates us represent facts with regard to their due weight. One or two lines at most. Second, a search engine test is most of the time a bad test.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 07:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Aha, I see you've finally modified the lead section to include a mention of the "locked to one computer forever" issue. Thanks very much! The wording is still slightly ambiguous: after your "Retail editions and Office RT are perpetually licensed to one computer" sentence, I would add (for clarity) "... and cannot be transferred to any other machine" to make it clear you don't mean "... one computer at a time." But that's in your hands; I'm happy to finally see a mention of this very serious issue in the opening. Barpoint (talk) 08:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Barpoint: Lisa was correct in saying it was already included, just not in the lede. She was also correct in stating that we have a neutral outlook, so sensationalising does not have a place here. Your suggestion was declined because it was seen as putting undue reference onto the fact. The current inclusion in the lede is more appropriate than your suggestion, and I think it is clear enough. Please, we are a kind and cooperative community, do not get into a war for the sake of it. Your conduct has been a little questionable in this discussion, so I'd ask you take care in the future not to be so hostile. Lisa is a prominent member of this community and, although not infallible, her opinion is to be respected and serious thought given to any reservations or thoughts she may have. She is not just arguing for the sake of it, or making flimsy points, but reflecting the principles of this site. I'm not saying I disagree with you that it should be in the lede; in fact, I like it as it is now. However, I'm giving you a bit of friendly advice, and asking that you respect editors, their opinions, and our peaceful operation. We only know of you what you write here, so don't make yourself look like bad. drewmunn talk 11:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Drewmunn: I originally wrote that this point was critical and should be mentioned in the lede instead of somewhere in the middle of the article. Codename Lisa responded, "Already done [boldface in original]. Hello. It is already mentioned." I am happy to let other Wikipedia editors judge whether that was a "cooperative" response, given that there was no mention in the lede at that time, and Codename Lisa had already reverted edits by several editors who had tried to give the issue more prominence.

The "locked to one computer forever" issue is hardly a "sensational" point, but a fundamental one. I'm glad you agree with me that it should be in the lede, and I'm happy that Codename Lisa finally relented and added it there herself. Barpoint (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Barpoint. Look, you have been recurrently giving contradictory signals so far. You said lead but your edit was full-blown body material; in addition, you mentioned my revert from the other guy who added material to body. And finally, when I mentioned MOS:LEAD to make certain what you want, you counterattacked. All of these show that the place of the material (the lead) might not have been your most significant concerns. In addition, you have been doing things that were purely wrong including calling an RFC on an empty discussion and commenting on the contributor instead of the material.

Now, past is past and problems won't be solved if one broods on the past. So, for last time, please focus on the contents only and see if there is anything about them left to discuss. If no, the discussion is over. If yes, then please state them. (Not in this thread of course, because no healthy discussion can be built upon an unhealthy past. Open a sub-thread in the discussion above and state your concerns.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• Barpoint, the bold typeface was not an attack, simply the template used for marking such requests. Lisa felt it was mentioned correctly as-was, or may have misunderstood your request, but her reply was not in any way an attack, or uncooperative. Anyway, my point was just that you didn't come across particularly well, and I suggest you think about the manner in which you reply, else your mood could escalate an issue. I'm not saying anybody was right or wrong, just that presentations of your view is just important as the view itself. drewmunn talk 13:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have a policy about whether it is appropriate for an editor who does not know a given subject to repeatedly remove edits made by those who do? These two disputes about this subject are mainly about Codename Lisa removing edits made by people who know the topic well. But Codename Lisa demonstrated her ignorance of the topic when she told me, after removing my edit, "it wouldn't be anything new. Almost all retail Microsoft products are like this, even Windows. Product deactivation is never provisioned." (Codename Lisa's comment dated 08:21, 12 December 2012). Her statement could not be more false. Greg (talk) 02:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. There is definitely a policy: WP:BRD. A contributor makes an edit, an editor who spots trouble with them removes them and then the editor and contributor discuss. Like me and you did and you pretty much won the discussion. As for the "repeatedly" part, again, yes, there is a policy: WP:EW, which says a contributor should not constantly reinstate the deleted edition without discussing just because he thinks he is right. Again, like me and you did: You stopped editing and we discussed. So, basically, you are an ideal Wikipedian who eventually got your edit into the article. Given all this, I don't know why you are commenting so bitterly. We discuss because one of us is wrong. We discuss to find out.

As for my false statement: True and false is not a basis for inclusion in Wikipedia. Verifiability is. For example, currently the article claims that software piracy is the cause of this licensing change without providing a reliable source. What is with that? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I have no idea what you mean by "commenting so bitterly". That's as baffling as your earlier comment that my original edit of January 30 was "frightening propaganda".

Greg (talk) 06:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Come now, my friend, it is obvious that you are not satisfied with the outcome. (You said it so in DRN.) It was a compromise: Something between my strict ideal and your contribution. No one likes a compromise. But let me tell you something: You have a bright future here because your social spirit and attitude is marvelous. As for the compromises, when the number of your edit goes higher, you automatically become less protective. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It's true that I did not think the outcome gave due weight to the issue. But that is not the same thing as being "so bitter", or even a little bit bitter. It's possible to be dissatisfied without being bitter about it.

Greg (talk) 08:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Google: Office 2013

The following are on the first 2 pages of hits. Articles all dedicated to one feature of Office 2013, the new licence:-
Microsoft
http://blogs.office.com/b/office-news/archive/2013/02/19/office-2013-and-office-365-installations-and-transferability.aspx
ZD Net
http://www.zdnet.com/big-changes-in-office-2013-and-office-365-test-microsoft-customers-loyalty-7000011389/
PC World
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2028609/what-office-2013s-draconian-licensing-policy-really-means-for-you.html
Slashgear
http://www.slashgear.com/microsoft-responds-to-questions-over-office-2013-transferability-20270160/
ArsTechnica
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/02/why-microsofts-new-office-2013-license-may-send-users-to-google-docs/
The Register
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02/20/office_2013_license_no_transfers/
CNET
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-57570292-75/microsoft-addresses-confusion-over-office-2013-licensing/
TechRepublic
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/window-on-windows/office-2013-licensing-changes-increase-it-angst/7301
eWeek
http://www.eweek.com/enterprise-apps/microsoft-addresses-controversial-office-2013-license-lock-in/
NeoWin
http://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-offers-clarity-on-office-2013-and-office-365-install-rights
This is clearly the most discussed aspect of Office 2013. There are many articles about this single aspect of Office 2013. No other feature is so important that it gets any articles about it. QuentinUK (talk) 02:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. There has never been any doubt about that. However, Wikipedia is not a newspaper does not contain journalism, especially sensational journalism. Contribution to Wikipedia should only contain facts, be from a neutral point of view and have due weight. So, just because a lot of journal dedicate pages to this issue does not mean that we should too.

Apart from that a search engine test is never a reliable test. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

1) The new licence is not a temporary news event it is a permanent change. This is to encourage people to the subscription Office 365. Other companies are also pressurising users to a subscription service, such as Adobe pushing users to Creative Cloud. The reason is not due to any single event but due to the maturity of these products where users no longer feel the need to keep upgrading to new versions. This is a long term effect where cash flow cannot be ensured by new features.

2) The above list includes Microsoft itself as well as independent journals. Microsoft verify that this is a fact. No one is asking for "pages" just due weight.

3) The link search engine test says "This is helpful in identifying sources, establishing notability, checking facts." The above does not mention "raw hit count" or any other unreliable features of a search. QuentinUK (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. It seems you have missed the point. I never said it is a temporary news event (although, whether it is permanent or not does not concern Wikipedia, per WP:CRYSTAL). All I said was Wikipedia is not a newspaper does not contain journalism, especially sensational journalism. Contribution to Wikipedia should only contain facts, be from a neutral point of view and have due weight. So, just because a lot of journal dedicate pages to this issue does not mean that we should too. (And my comment on search engine test comes from that direction too, not from one that you explained.)

In other words, we do not write "People of the world, tremble in horror and shriek! Office licensing terms has changed! Who knows what is changing. This world is going to hell!" We write, "Office licensing terms has changed." My example employed an element of comedy but I think I am being very clear that although Wikipedia agrees with adding facts to the article, it does not agree with fuss, fan-fights and FUD-pushing.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 06:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't want to step in here, but you leave me little choice... "fuss, fan-fights and FUD-pushing": quite an accurate description of all of your involvement with this article so far (not to mention some of your involvement with certain other ones). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 07:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, look here! Finally you decided to use a talk after all. But in your first use, you perform a personal attack on another editor. (At least it is better than vandalising my talk page and userpage.) But if you want to accuse, at least respect your own intelligence and accuse her of something that fits what she does, like revert-warring or censorship. But frankly, Dogm, I take a bad editor like Codename Lisa over a tendentious editor like you any day. Bad editing is not a crime; malicious editing is. Fleet Command (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Both you and User:Codename Lisa should read the pot calling the kettle black. Additionally, don't think I didn't notice the stealth insult in the different ways you wrote my username and that of User:Codename Lisa. (By the way, that was not vandalism - in fact, your user page continues to violate Wikipedia policy, although I notice you fixed your user talk page... to some extent, at least. I simply decided to WP:JUSTDROPIT - but your gloating about me doing so doesn't exactly cause me to think I shouldn't change that decision.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Problem in areas about licensing

Hi.

So, while we are waiting for someone to take the DRN case about our little dispute here, I thought perhaps it is best if we continued to discuss here. I start by recounting the various points that I stated in my objections but were scattered amongst discussions and will update them, adding some points mentioned in the opening comments of the DRN:

1. WP:LEAD problem: According to WP:LEAD, the lead section of the article should not contain novel info. Rather it should contain a summary of what the body says. Currently, the lead talks about the difference between the current licensing scheme and that of Office 2010 but body does not contain these contents.
2. Verifiability problem: There is no source for the statement that says there is no such thing as a boxed copy. (It says retail versions are only downloaded.) (A Microsoft source for this is found but one editor has contested using it.)
3. Verifiability problem: There is no source for the statement "many commentators see this change as a "Trojan horse"-style effort". What does this statement mean anyway? Trojan horse-style?
4. Improper synthesis of source: The article says this licensing scheme change is only because people pirated Microsoft Office. The source does not say such a thing. It says Microsoft was asked how they are going to enforce this licensing change and Microsoft replied they had various means of preventing piracy.
5. Improper synthesis of source: This article says "This may be illegal in the European Union" but there is no source to support this. One of the sources says "Legal precedent varies depending on the jurisdiction, with European courts tending to lean in favor of consumer rights" but does not say whether this leaning goes so far to overrule Microsoft license. The other source talks about a court case related to Oracle but there is no evidence to believe it may apply to this case. This case was in July and Microsoft may have analyzed the ruling and have taken steps to see that it does not interfere with Office EULA.
6. Non-neutral point of view problem: You have probably heard it a thousands of times before but article should not have sections dedicated to criticism. Instead, criticism must be spread evenly into the article. The proper place of this criticism is in the section dedicated to boxed edition.
7. Non-neutral point of view problem: The article suppresses statements that may downplay the importance of this issue. For instance:
   1. Ars Technica and Supersite said that this change does not impact a lot customers. According to Ars Technica, "The only people who would be impacted are those who migrate software between systems, and while that's common among enthusiasts, it's probably not mainstream: the mainstream solution is to buy an OEM preinstall license, or buy retail Office alongside a new PC, use that PC for 5 years (or more) until it no longer works, then throw it away and repeat the process." And the OEM version of Office 2010 was subject to the same restrictions.
   2. According to Microsoft, downloadable and OEM editions of Office 2010 also were not transferable. Therefore, from a neutral point of view, the only licensing change between Office 2010 and Office 2013 is (a.) discontinuation of transferable boxed editions and (b.) introduction of transferable Office 365 editions for consumers. In other words, there is no licensing change from transferable into non-transferable, although there is a complete departure from boxed models to downloadable model.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

1 and 3 are simply problems with how those parts are written - they should not be removed because of that. 2 is easily found (though it requires clarification because it is apparently not the case in some countries). 6 is not a valid point at all: this is not a criticism section, but a section discussing a particular, highly-controversial, aspect of this product.

7 could perhaps be added, except that it doesn't make much sense: since (most) previous versions allowed transfers, the only possible reason to "throw" the software "away" could be to buy a new version - but (again, most) previous versions had Upgrade copies too; besides that, there is also the other change (to single-computer licensing instead of allowing installation on two or three). In any case, for something like 7, statistics would be highly preferable to commentators' opinions. (By the way, where is the evidence that this article "suppresses" this information as opposed to it simply not being in the article?)

As for 4 and 5: either sources that more closely reflect that text in the article should be found, or that text should be changed to more closely reflect the current sources (but not removed, as both points are at least somewhat discussed by the current sources).

(By the way, I think much trouble could have been saved had you presented your concerns in this list format from the start.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 09:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. So basically, me and you have no problems except on #6. (You seem to object #7 but have no trouble with adding it, am I right?) That is good news.

As for the contents without source, I won't discuss the removal at this time because there is no plans to do it. So, if you have source why don't you add them? If you want to discuss the act of deleting unreferenced contents itself, you can come to my talk page later.

As for #6, I won't be adding {{criticism-section}} to the section for the time being because you know it; but it must happen. WP:GA will fail the article unless it happens. As you said, it is "a section discussing a particular, highly-controversial, aspect of this product"; yes, that is the very definition of the criticism section.

And about you last point: No, I didn't make this list in the first place because until when I did, there was no need. Greg seems to know them all and his contribution did not integrate most of these elements. Barpoint on the other hand, only wanted the lead fixed. Neither Greg or Barpoint argued about returning the guest contributor's contents (I assume because they knew the problems with them.)

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Per my reasoning above, there is no "contents without source" in this issue - it's simply a matter of tweaking the text so it more closely resembles the cited WP:RS, assuming that WP:RS that more closely fit the existing text cannot be found. Also, I've already added several sources about this issue - you could try to find some too.

Regarding 6: first of all, WP:CRITICISM states: "A section dedicated to negative material is sometimes appropriate[.]" Therefore, your conclusion that "it must happen" is already flawed. Second, this is not a criticism section at all because it is not a collection of negative aspects of the product but a thorough discussion of a particular aspect that just happens to overwhelmingly be viewed negatively by WP:RS.

I do not agree with adding 7 in its current state because of the several inconsistencies and questionable sources (for such a quantitative matter) that I pointed out.

As for my last point: I meant that you should have posted this list once I started editing that aspect of this article instead of opening a dispute case. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I did not found those statements in the source, so yes, there is contents without source issue.

You misquoted WP:CRITICISM. It continues: "...if the sources treat the negative material as an organic whole, and if readers would be better served by seeing all the negative material in one location." That is not the case here. The current section is openly anti-Microsoft whereas we are supposed to have WP:NPOV (neither pro- nor anti-). In addition, remember: WP:CRITICISM is an essay. In the areas that is found to contradict WP:NPOV, it holds no value.

As for your concern regarding #7, don't worry; solving it is possible.

And as for your last point: With due regard to your last email, I had zero hope of you showing up. So, I actually opened this discussion for the benefit of DRN case because there is a lot to discuss. DRN is a great place.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 16:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

(Okay, I realize English is almost certainly not your first language, but e-mail? Really?)

Before you posted this list, you simply wrote generalities about this article. Since I had nothing to contribute to those, I simply chose to stay away from the discussion.

Now for the content points: I find the fact that WP:CRITICISM is an essay incredibly annoying, since it is such an obvious link that I didn't even bother to check whether it was tagged as such, but I suppose I digress (although I did not misquote it but only arguably quoted it out of context)... in any case, as far as I can tell, WP:NPOV does not state anything that contradicts me on this. Again, as far as I can tell, the only part of WP:NPOV that could support your assertion in general is WP:WEIGHT, but as this statement - which I have quoted before - shows, it is not applicable in this case: "From the perspective of news coverage by reliable sources, *the* most discussed new attribute of the retail version of Office 2013 is that it is locked to one machine forever."

Saying "solving it is possible" isn't particularly useful here. Could you elaborate?

Every single statement about this issue that is currently in this article is supported by the respective quoted source(s) to at least some extent - this is what I meant by saying that there is no "contents without source" in this case. In other words, I'm simply emphasizing that none of these statements should be removed, just modified (if necessary). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi.

Just to clarify, I perfectly know what "email" is and I know its difference from a Wikipedia talk page. It is sent via Special:EmailUser and you sent me an email last time. You can request a 'crat to recover it for you if you didn't request a copy to be sent to yourself. But the crux of the comment is: I had zero hope of you showing up. (Further discussion about email should go to either my/your talk page.)

I just understood what you meant about the source. As I said, there is not plan for removing them now. Please add citations as soon as you can.

Now, here is the point where the discussion about 6 and 7 merge: I feel while the section should be neutral, it is anti-Microsoft. For example, my concern is that the piracy part and the "Trojan horse-style" part are contentious labeling, as is the case with all WP:SYNTH cases. IMHO, adding other aspects of the issue, such as the suppressed facts about the limited impact of this licensing change (mentioned in the sources that you yourself added) can help. I am not saying that you must agree with me: We can discuss with other editors, try various editions of the sentence and write the one that has most acceptance. DRN case helps a lot.

In conclusion, our disagreement might be substantial but its scope is minimal. So, lets get DRN going. Hopefully, other editors will join us.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Very well, I will take the e-mail issue to your talk page.

I think that our disagreement about 6 and 7 stems from your interpretation of WP:NPOV, which seems to conflict with WP:WEIGHT (which is actually part of WP:NPOV). If WP:RS are overwhelmingly negative about a certain topic, there is no valid reason why Wikipedia shouldn't be too - in fact, it would violate WP:WEIGHT if it wasn't! The exact wording, on the other hand, could certainly be changed - again, if necessary. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. According to Microsoft, if a retail version of Office is installed on a device that fails under warranty, customers can contact support to receive an exemption for installation on the replacement device. It also says the PKC (product key card) versions of Office 2010 were also not transferable. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the first point: I don't think this should be included at all per WP:ABOUTSELF - not to mention that we're talking about a statement on a blog vs. a statement in a license agreement.

The second point can be included but only with clarification regarding the fact that the full boxed copies that existed for 2010 were eliminated altogether for 2013 (which is why a direct comparison isn't possible) - except possibly in some countries, as I noted above. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. You have a point here but also slightly wrong.

I think you have mistaken WP:ABOUTSELF with WP:PRIMARY. Both blog and EULA are primary sources but none of them are about themselves. WP:ABOUTSELF applies when the blog talks about itself or its author, or when the EULA talks about itself. Wikipedia policy is: "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." As you previously stated in one of your edit summaries "Microsoft's own word" is important, so that means we should represent it fairly, proportionately and without bias. If we omit it, out point of view becomes anti-Microsoft instead of neutral.

But you are right about one point: A blog is probably not as important as EULA, so we must not overemphasize it. Yes, I agree. Due emphasis only.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 13:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm not confusing WP:ABOUTSELF with anything. It definitely applies here - note the "or their activities" part of it.

I'll explain more specifically, though - the issue is with point 1 of WP:ABOUTSELF: "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim". Microsoft itself making a statement that could easily change one's mind from not buying the software because of the licensing changes to buying it sounds pretty self-serving to me, and the fact that, as I said, we're talking about an EULA vs. a blog makes this statement of the blog sound like an exceptional claim to me. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I still have doubts but okay. Still, the PKC issue is valuable. By the way, I think the IP is right. I think development should be on the top. And the delay with the DRN is making me edgy. Should we call the volunteer? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I reverted the IP's edit in part because the DRN case is still ongoing but also because I put that section highest as a compromise given that I also put the discussion of the licensing at the very end of the lead (after some shuffling around of both). Furthermore, I didn't want to split the standard product sections (development, features, etc.) with the licensing section in either the lead or body.

Not sure what's going on with that case. I did receive a notification (at my talk page) that it had been opened, but it certainly doesn't look open to me... I also noticed that you did not receive this notification for some reason. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. That's no compromise. If you go to WP:FA, they'll tell you that lead should have the same order as body. We should do that here. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm vehemently against putting the licensing section at the end of the body, putting the corresponding paragraph at the beginning of the lead is obviously impossible, and as I said, I don't want to put either licensing part between any other parts because that would split the latter (especially compared to other articles, particularly those for other Microsoft Office versions).

I also can't find the point you mentioned at WP:FA - could you provide a direct link? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Whoa! I didn't say put it at the end of body! (That's crazy!) I say put it after the Development and adjust the lead accordingly.

As for FA, no I didn't expect you could. Forget about FA completely and don't waste your time. I am serious. You cannot write a Featured Article. Feel free to try and prove me wrong but no offense, you will FAIL with capital F. I hope you will excuse me, but you don't have the skills or tolerance. The very least needed skill is to be able remain calm while someone who insults you puts an Oppose vote there (yes, vote) and after that politely coax him into overturning his vote. I and five other editors wrote an FA article but that's because we had some social skill and were ready cede our point of view in favor of others. FA is about knowing unwritten rules, knowing when to obey Wikipedia rules and when to break them. In a featured article, you should have reason for everything, including why contents in your lead is written in one order and your body in another order. If you can't give a satisfactory answer (satisfactory, not correct!) you get an oppose and that's it: Bye, bye FA! If you really think you are skilled in writing Wikipedia articles, try a WP:GA.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

This is why I'm reluctant to discuss anything with you. You often don't bother to respond to many of the concerns the other user raises and your writing style is so strange that it is borderline incomprehensible at times.

It also sounds like you didn't follow my suggestion above for you to read the pot calling the kettle black. Too bad - you're thus left unable to appreciate the sheer irony of discussing being able to remain calm in a response like the one you wrote above. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello again. I don't understand what you mean, but I say again: Never try to make an article FA. Never. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the point you just added to the list: first, from a WP:WEIGHT perspective, Wikipedia should report the licensing change even if it is as you stated because that's how the vast majority of WP:RS view it (the quantitative statements without supporting statistics notwithstanding). Second, you are ignoring the fact that there is in fact a change: for Microsoft Office 2010, if someone wanted a transferable retail (one-time-payment) copy, there was the FPP - the PKC was simply another option; however, with this version, there is simply no transferable retail (again, one-time-payment) version at all! Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's a blog link that supports the opinion that the new license could be illegal in the EU. http://helmipunya1.blogspot.com/2013/02/microsoft-office-2013.html It seems like it should be mentioned in the appropriate part of the article. And per wiki reference policy as it is opinion and not fact a blog post is a valid source.

While the term "boxed copy" now seems to no longer apply, I think even when there was a boxed copy a more apt term would be "retail copy", and I would disagree that Microsoft Office retail sales are so small to be immaterial. In fact it looks like the Ars Technica author's imagination, and typing are a little out of touch with reality http://betanews.com/2009/08/07/office-home-and-student-accounts-for-85-of-us-office-retail-share/

The trojan horse metaphor probably refers to putting provisions in the license that very few people read from which trojans will spring from long after purchase. People will buy their retail copy, and then, when they try to move it to a new computer they will find that their retail copy that used to be able to be transferred to new computers unlike the OEM version is now hindered like the OEM copy, tying it to a computer they may have had already for years. So someone could buy office for their old computer for how ever many hundred dollars, and then replace it a month later only to find that their retail copy that costs much more than the OEM copy is now worthless.

The fact that OEM versions were not transferable is a non sequitor to the discussion of a change in the retail version license.TeeTylerToe (talk) 03:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Tyler

The blog post you supplied is a word-for-word copy and paste of this article. It is not even a source! As for Betanews source, it is about Office 2007; it is four years old and does not even contradict Ars Technica. As for the rest, OR is not allowed in Wikipedia.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 10:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess I should have checked the blog more carefully. The Ars Technica quote quotes the author saying that people "probably" don't migrate their software from computer to computer (yay journalism... wait...). It looks like Microsoft disagrees, and this has mostly become moot. Microsoft's changed the license to allow it to be transferable due to customer feedback. It's like you just can't trust what lazy internet "journalists" say could probably be true anymore. What kind of world are we living in now? http://blogs.office.com/b/office-news/archive/2013/03/06/office-2013-retail-license-agreement-now-transferable.aspx Also fwiw, cnet or znet said that the "boxed" copies of office '13 that will be sold in stores will be boxes with a key card for the download. That sounds like it could even be true.TeeTylerToe (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I agree. That's true. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: Listing the Metro apps on the comparison table

I do not believe they should be there; it makes the entire table messy, they're not part of the Office 2013 suite that is purchased (do we list Powerpoint Viewer on there just because it's part of Office?); mentioning that they exist in the article is something I support, but these should be things that are truly mentioned on the pages for OneNote and Lync. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Project and Visio are listed despite not being part of any Office suites. SharePoint Designer is listed despite not even being a product that is sold at all! As for your comment about PowerPoint Viewer, Visio Viewer isn't listed but is clearly mentioned... perhaps that should be fixed one way or another for consistency.

Also, what about Office 365 taking up about half the table? After all, the Metro apps listed don't have separate articles like Office 365 does. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello people

Adding Metro apps to the table has pros and cons. I will try to recount them here.

Pros include: Telling the reader that there are free Metro-style editions of the apps

Cons include:

1. Lack of relevance: The object of the table is to compare different editions of Office 2013 suite. But suddenly out of nowhere, the table introduces Metro-style apps, not in par with components, but with editions, giving the whole table an eerie lopsided look. Even if Metro-style versions were to be included, they should been included amongst other apps, not editions. (Rows vs. columns)
2. Unbalanced coverage: Almost very component of Microsoft Office has different editions. Word, Excel and PowerPoint have free reader editions, as well as Windows RT editions. Visio and Projects have Standard and Professional editions. Outlooks has business and core editions. Even there are web editions of Word, Excel, PowerPoint and OneNote which are not full-featured. So, why not them but OneNote and Lync?
3. Messy: The table is already too wide. Even on a 1600×900 screen, it wraps. In the meantime, our mobile users have to read the article on a 640×360 screen. Making it messier does not help.

Now, there are alternative ways of adding the same information into the article:

1. Another section of the same article: Although this table is only about suite editions, the whole article is not. Office 2013 is not just a suite but also a product family. Why not have a lineup table?
2. Into "As an individual product" column: I have always thought this column is redundant. So, earlier, I tried to replace it with something more useful that covers our issue. It was, however, rejected, no reason given.
3. As small text in row headings: We already have such a thing for Visio and Project. Why not have such a thing for OneNote, Lync and every other entry?
4. Not mentioning them at all: We can include these information in their own respective articles. The rationale is deceivingly simple: This article is about a suite of desktop apps for Windows. We do not speak of Mac apps, Web apps, or even server apps for Windows in it. So, why should we make an exception for Metro-apps?
5. Retaining status quo: Obviously, we are here because some people do not like the current status changed...

Unless there is an immediate consensus, I propose opening an RFC.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with option 2. (Had you actually written a proper edit summary for that edit, I would perhaps have noticed that change - not to mention that the unnecessary colourization you added did not help.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

While they're not in any of the "normal" suites, Project and Visio still seem to count as part of the Microsoft Office "family" of programs; I don't know why it's like that, but maybe its because of their specialized or enterprise nature. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Viper. That is quite right. In addition, there is reason to include certain items because it is unclear to reader whether they are simply dropped from the table or they are not included with any version of the suite. For example, an Office 2007/2010/2013 user may wonder which edition of Microsoft Office 2003 have Microsoft OneNote. (None have.) Or vice versa, an Office XP users may want to know which version of Office 2013 has SharePoint Designer. (Again, none.)

By the way, you didn't say: Which of the five alternatives do you like? Or of course, if you have a better idea, I am all ears.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

How I had it was to mention them next to Office RT, primarily because they're compatible with Windows RT too (but also work on 8). Or, maybe we should make a section related to just the Office 2013 mobile versions in general (such as the Windows Phone 8 version). But still, they shouldn't be in the table because these are completely different beasts from the actual programs.ViperSnake151  Talk  23:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I agree with you, although Windows Store apps do not run on Windows Phone. (There is a Windows Phone Store.) But anyway, I agree. I slightly changed the item #1 to show my agreement. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Why is the Microsoft Office 365 table here and not there?

I expect two separate explanations for this - one for why it is here and one for why it is not there. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. There used to be a table there. I specifically remember that. A table in Office 365 article is great if:

• It includes plans of Office 365 (instead of being a duplicate of this table)
• It includes what is included in each plan instead of just Microsoft Office suite (I take that it includes, not just Office, but Exchange, SharePoint, Office Web Apps, Office for Mac, etc.)

But your purpose would be better served if you ask the question in Talk:Microsoft Office 365. And remember: A good idea needs nothing else to warrant it beyond the fact that it is a good idea. Wikipedia is build upon that principle.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You did not address the first part of my question. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Re-read my last two sentences before signature. That would be your answer. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm looking for a more specific explanation than that - after all, those two sentences are generalities, and WP:CON simply cannot be built on generalities. In this case, I'm looking for reasoning as to why it's a good idea to have the table here. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. It so far has been the best idea to represent what it is representing. If you have a better idea, I am listening. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Office edition in RT 8.1

We know that Windows RT 8.0 includes Office Home & Student 2013 RT and we also know that Windows RT 8.1 adds Outlook RT. That means one of three things:

1. Outlook RT is becoming part of Office Home & Student 2013 RT (which implies the same thing would happen on the x86 side.)

2. Windows RT 8.1 includes a different edition of Office than Home & Student.

3. Windows RT 8.1 simply includes both the Home & Student suite and Outlook.

On the editions chart we seem to have assumed the first explanation, and we're also implying that Outlook is coming to Home & Student altogether, not just to RT. Do we have any official word on what's happening in terms of editions? - Josh (talk | contribs) 00:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Good call. Feel free to replace the mention with {{No}}. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose replacing the text with "No" because "Pending" is more accurate. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

How do we know it's accurate? Is Outlook going to be part of Home & Student or just part of Windows RT? We don't have an answer to that. - Josh (talk | contribs) 23:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

At this point, the fact that it's coming to RT needs to be mentioned somewhere in the table, and I don't see a better place for it. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 00:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Most of the Office 365 content should be removed from this article

Now that the comparison table is once again present at Microsoft Office 365, this should be discussed. The reasoning for this is simple: Office 365 existed before this version of Office did, and will likely continue to exist long after this version is unsupported. Yes, Microsoft happened to introduce at least one new tier of Office 365 when this version was released, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the entirety of Office 365 is permanently linked to this version of Office more than any other version. Microsoft has also discussed providing more frequent updates to Office 365 than the standalone version of Office, so the included programs may become desynchronized quite quickly in terms of versions.

The bottom line is that Office 365 should be mentioned, but shouldn't get a whole paragraph here, let alone section, and definitely shouldn't get about half of the comparison table. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I used to be of the same opinion; see my comments in the section above. Well, I no longer am. As Office 365's importance grew the amount of contents in this article change nature, from undue overcoverage to proper amount. It is the Office 365's article that needs expansion. Besides, the comparison table in this article will remain static, while the one in Microsoft Office 365 article will change as the new versions of Office comes.

Overall, no, I am afraid I don't think so. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem with saying "the comparison table in this article will remain static" is the same as the one I pointed out: Office 365 is subject to change. If this article doesn't change along with it, it risks confusing Wikipedia readers.

Of course, continually changing the article is problematic too, since it requires constant resynchronization between this table and the one at Microsoft Office 365, so the only solution to this problem I can see is the one I've proposed.

The rest of your reasoning doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps further explanation would be of use. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I know that it is natural that when Office 365 changed, its article should changes, reporting the most recent development. If you are worried about obligations of changing it however, you have none, so don't worry. The table in this article, however, must remain static because it is about Office 2013, not the latest version of Office, so its relation with Office 365 remains that much. (Surely, it is ridiculous to compare Office 2013 editions with the most recent Office 365 offerings, especially for another version of Office.)

"The rest of your reasoning doesn't make sense to me." What rest? I haven't used reasoning in my whole message. (Neither did you.) You said your opinion, I said mine. We disagree. That's all. We editors of Wikipedia have learned to live with that. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

By the "rest of your reasoning", I was referring to this: "As Office 365's importance grew the amount of contents in this article change nature, from undue overcoverage to proper amount. It is the Office 365's article that needs expansion." (I'm ignoring the multiple places for [sic] here, by the way.)

In any case, what you're suggesting - or at least implying - seems quite ridiculous to me: that the description of Office 365 should be frozen in every article about an Office version that co-existed with it. Do you not realize how confusing this would be? Even if you don't care about that, do you not realize how difficult it would be to reliably source this over time (considering that Microsoft is unlikely to keep around old documentation and such for a cloud-based product like it)? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 02:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Not only I do realize the caveats of maintaining the article, I exactly know what to do. In fact I was about to plunge into doing it when the article was young. But I stopped because something happened. But I digress. The point is: No, it is not ridiculous at all. It is what all developers of encyclopedia do. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Where is the Criticism?

It is pretty hard to imagine that Microsoft got a homerun on this. Where is the Criticism section? 128.147.28.77 (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Such sections are not allowed in Wikipedia, per Wikipedia:Criticism. We already have a hard time removing and dispersing them as it is. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

That seems shortsighted. Are Controversy sections to be eliminated, too? Office 2013 is my favorite Office so far (not a high bar), but it's got serious rendering issues. Whole screens are reliably blank frequently, such as the first time anyone in our dept (org?) brings up their calendar. It's notable. Brianary (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I also support having a Criticism section. Life is neither heaven nor hell, and to stay neutral, we need both good and bads. So in this sense, why Microsoft Office 2016 should have a criticism section, while 2013 shouldn't? This doesn't make much sense, and the essay quoted isn't a guideline per se Tabdiukov (talk) 10:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Why is not easy find limits of office, such as "Number precision 15 digits" are unchangeable from Office 97? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.24.171.160 (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Default format?

What is Office 2013's default format, what does it save a new document as out of the box? ISO 29500 Strict is supported, but what variety of OOXML does it default to? This should be noted - David Gerard (talk) 23:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

It appears the default is ISO 29500 Transitional (approximately the same as MS Office 2010) - but Strict is an option. Now is there documentation saying this ... - David Gerard (talk) 06:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

InfoPath errors

The InfoPath row in the colorful comparison chart contains two errors. 1. InfoPath is not available as a standalone product in 2013 as it was in 2010. 2. InfoPath is not included in 365 Small Business Premium. The Office 365 article has that right.

Also, the chart is missing 365 Midsize Business (which does include InfoPath ). Rather than adding it though, I would vote with someone else who suggested removing 365 from the chart as redundant of the main 365 article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GFMobile (talk • contribs) 22:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, GFMobile

I've fixed the InfoPath issues mentioned in the table. But a word of advice: According to featured article criteria, articles must contain all major details about their subjects and omit nothing. Meanwhile, we do not have to provide ongoing coverage of Office 365 in this article; just a point-in-time snapshot of the licensing program's status at the time of Office 2013's release and the portion to concerns Office 2013.

So, no, nothing is getting deleted and what you refer to as deficiency or outdatedness is in fact deliberate historic coverage.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 05:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

MOS:DATEFORMAT

Hi.

So, I saw edit #643829207 by Comp.arch and it seem it has converted 90% of the article dates from DMY to MDY. I am pretty sure this is a violation of WP:DATESRET.

I performed a conversion of all formats to DMY and I see relatively few dates get converted. So I think DMY is the dominant format.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 04:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

MDY is correct for this article, per MOS:DATETIES as Microsoft is an American company. -- Calidum 05:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Calidum: Hi.

I am afraid this fallacy is discussed ad nauseam in length and rejected several times. The general consensus is that Microsoft, a multinational corporation with a diverse spectrum of employees worldwide, has invested heavily on both vast international marketing and localization, so much so that there is nothing strongly American about it. There is nothing about Microsoft that ties it to U.S. more than anywhere else except when the issue strictly concerns patent or competition laws. In fact, if Microsoft quietly move its headquarters to another country, no one would feel anything. Now, the same thing is not true for, say U.S. Marine Corps.

For your information, Microsoft Security Essentials, a featured article, uses DMY dates consistently.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 12:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

What a bunch of crap. The company was founded in America, headquartered in America, and traded on an American stock exchange. If you don't feel that qualifies as strong ties, you should get your head checked. -- Calidum 15:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, our article United States Marine Corps uses DMY even though no plans to permanently relocate to another country have been announced. NebY (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

That particular section of the MOS I referred to says the US military uses DMY. -- Calidum 16:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Calidum: I have replied to this in Lukeno94's thread below. That said, you are too quick to assume victory and revert. Please be advised that your reverts are borderlining on edit warring. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Using this logic on other articles got me reverted, so something is telling me that you are wrong. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

This notion re "multinational companies" was proposed at the MOSNUM talk page and specifically rejected. Re MS specifically, although yes, MS is a multinational company, its organizations outside of the U.S. are referred to as "subsidiaries" and take direction from the offices in Redmond WA. Is Office a "multinational product"? Well, the main development group is in Redmond... This can be settled one of two ways: Either leave it as the first major contributor to the article had it (i.e. do not change the style upon personal whim; there is support at MOS for this. Or else follow the usage in the majority of the article's sources. Jeh (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jeh: Hi. The rejection is relevant to this discussion but not fully. As mentioned: "User:ViperSnake151 seems to be operating under the mistaken belief that articles on topics of international interest must use the DMY format." Indeed, it was I who reinstated MDY dates in Windows 8 article in September. In addition, I myself never claimed Microsoft having strong international ties. I only claimed it does not have national ties. Please see the reply to Lukeno94 below. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• This proposal fails on two fronts. Firstly, Microsoft are an American company, and this is an American product. It doesn't matter if they have employees around the globe; so do General Motors, and yet their American motor vehicles use the MDY method. But let's assume that this factoid is invalid. We then have the fallback of "If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page." Now, an international product clearly does not have "strong national ties", and thus we default to the stable version; equally, no consensus is present, so we still stick with the stable version. Long story short; however you try and fiddle with it, the MOS is clearly against your change. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Lukeno94: Hi. Since you replied to my thread, I assume you are talking to me.

First, I didn't make a proposal. I reverted a controversial edit. That's all. The proposal is Comp.arch's.

Second, American alone is not sufficient. MOS requires strong national ties. A strong national tie is one that citizens of a nation make it their own personal business. Claiming that it has strong national ties is like claiming Americans feel things about Microsoft that the rest of the world do not feel. I don't see Americans buying Windows Vista, Windows 8 or OneCare just because they are domestic. In fact, they flock to buying BitDefender or Kaspersky Internet Security (European) sooner than Microsoft can turn its head. I have also never seen love from Americans just because I work in conjunction to their national pride, Microsoft! Quite to the contrary, the WikiProject Microsoft tag on my user page has once or twice evoked personal attacks on me. I can compare Microsoft with United Nations which is headquartered in New York City.

Things that have strong national ties to U.S. are forth of July, NASA and United States Marine Corps (despite the fact the Corps uses non-American date style).

Last but not least, our subject of discussion here is Office 2013, not Microsoft. This computer program has no strong ties to any specific nation.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa:: "I didn't make a proposal [..] The proposal is Comp.arch's." I'm fine with DMY/revert, wasn't really "proposing" anything, AND if you think I'm wrong (in general) just revert me and say that I might be/am wrong. comp.arch (talk) 10:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• For those who are curious, the article initially used MDY [1] and the article's text has always used that format since. This whole kurfuffle is about matching dates within references to the text. So even if DATETIES doesn't apply, common sense says references should follow the same format as the text. -- Calidum 23:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• So what? WP:DATESRET says "If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page." Evolution has precedence over what was first.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. The article has always used MDY formatting in the text; because of that it should use MDY in the references as well. Are you suggesting we use one style of dates for the text and a separate style for references? -- Calidum 23:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

That's actually a good idea that is endorsed by MOS:DATEUNIFY!

And, honestly, no, I wasn't suggesting it; I give you full credit for this compromise.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I observe that after the first flurry of edits by the article creator, User:NazmusLabs, the article used MDY format in the body of the article and the YYYY-MM-DD format in the citations. Nothing on the talk page shows any consensus to change from that format. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Ancient history at best. Per MOS, first contributor's choice takes third precedence. Evolution matters. In addition, silence gives consensus. If all the editors watching this page saw it and did nothing, then they are taken to consent. In this case, a WP:EDITCONSENSUS is formed.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Before commenting, I looked at a version before the recent flurry of date format edits. It had inconsistent usage. I would expect an editor repairing inconsistent usage to restore the first consistent usage, or state why some other choice was made on the talk page. Otherwise the rule becomes "if you don't like the date format, wait for some editors who don't care about style to make mistakes, then change it to whatever you want." Jc3s5h (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree. I think it should be returned to (or stay with) the first consistent usage, which seems to be mdy. References can be either that, or ymd. Jeh (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I would affirm that Microsoft Office does not have strong national ties. Regardless of the nationality of its manufacturer, and regardless of whether it is the dominant office-based software in any particular country, the software itself is clearly international in nature. One simply needs to look at the software's widespread use around the world and its international settings that accommodate international spelling, grammar and date formats to see that. It does not have strong national ties to the USA by virtue of Microsoft's head office location than it has strong national ties to France because of the "Enforce accented uppercase in French" option in the "proofing" settings.

DATERET requires that the most stable date format be retained; date formats do not default to DMY simply because no strong national ties exist. —sroc 💬 03:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Since I started this.. I do not really care which format is used. I just dislike then the formats are inconsistent. In this case there was no "use dmy dates" template and MDY was used in the article (e.g. Infobox). I didn't check further (but often check first use) as I assumed US company/product.. comp.arch (talk) 10:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• I don't take anyone's side here, but I just summarize WP:DATESRET: First, de facto style, then major contributor's style, then first style. Somebody above said something about a certain recent diff having 90% of some style. (Sorry, long wall of text; can't keep all in memory at once.) That's de facto in my book, if that person was telling the truth. Again, I am not saying who is right here, but Jeh is definitely wrong: As I mentioned, first date style is only enforced when no de facto style, no major contributor's style, or no major contributor exists. Fleet Command (talk) 10:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, didn't know order: "de facto style, then major contributor's style, then first style", well usually I go with "de facto style" and change the few exceptions but I thought first use decides.. That at least is a deterministic algorithm (while often slow even when I use binary search), "major contributor's style", seems seems even more problematic.. comp.arch (talk) 10:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

(Why do some people use asterisks and some use colons?)

I also did not realize there was a strict order. Although it is a deterministic algorithm, the criteria the algorithm looks at seem to me to be vague: "de facto style" seems to me to be as vague as "major contributor".

But anyway, it looks to me as though this flurry of edits was started here by Comp.arch, who merely changed the date formats in the references from dmy to mdy, to match the mdy formatting in the article body. Which is something that is supported by MOS - in fact it clearly says that they should not be different, unless the refs are ymd. (If you're thinking that there were a lot more dates in the refs than in the article, so the dates in the refs should win, I disagree. That would be the tail wagging the dog.) Is the mdy in the body very recent? I don't think so. I am not going to check all of the diffs for the past several years, but going back to 2014-01-10 shows almost all mdy's in the body, with a mix in the refs. Assuming there were no significant date format changes to the body between then and now, does this not establish mdy as "de facto style", and the refs using dmy as wrong? In short I think Comp.arch's edits were correct (to bring the formats in the dates into line with practice established in the article for at least a year). Jeh (talk) 11:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jeh: Again, there is a solution to that. According to MOS:DATEUNIFY, an article can have three independent date styles: One in the prose, one in the citation's publication dates and one in citation access and archive dates. In my humble opinion, the person who invented {{Use dmy dates}}/{{Use mdy dates}} committed a gross MOS:DATEUNIFY violation. One that we can fix at any time. Maybe right now? Fleet Command (talk) 13:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Prior to Comp.arch's edit, the references used both mdy and dmy. Comp.arch unified the date formats within the references. The format he chose was the style that was already prevailing within the article. So the dates in the refs did not comply with DATEUNIFY before, and they do now. Conclusion: Just leave it. Jeh (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jeh: On my count, Comp.arch changed 89 dates out of the 113 in the citations to MDY. That's 78% of them and counts as "predominantly". It is quite clear DMY was the de facto date format there. He must have changed the remaining 24 instead to DMY instead. As for the body, it needed no change. (Or maybe I missed one DMY in the body that needed conversion to MDY?)

Tell me Jeh; do you even know why we have such a complex policy towards dates? Because I think you haven't understood its purpose. Fleet Command (talk) 11:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

"article can have three independent date styles", I'll try to follow the rules, but this is kind of a stupid rule if it allows MDY and DMY! I can understand contractions for tables, but would think in all cases the order should be the same (at least in main article). [I would have thought best that refs use the same style.] Maybe only meant for allowing YYYY-MM-DD is refs (which is BTW is problematic, when DD is missing and you get errors..). Sometimes I only ask for "Body dates to".. but here and usually I use the script "ALL dates to".. I noticed here that there where lots of changes but didn't count as there might well have been more with MDY than DMY. Wasn't really trying to change the "defacto" and as I said can go either way, it's just a low-priority issue for me.. I was changing other formatting and noticed two date formats used and went the way that I thought obviously right (see now multi-national and other arguments..). comp.arch (talk) 12:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Comp.arch: "...but this is kind of a stupid rule..." Exactly what I said the first time. Until I understood why four years later. Turn out, lots of people think that way. I don't deny that you are acting in good faith. Let's look at it like committing a typo; nothing personal. I think you should take remedial action right now and reinstated the sentence that was misfiled by ninja action. I guess this whole case would have had a more peaceful conclusion under normal circumstances.

Look at me: I didn't intend to take side; just wanted to give direction neutrally. I became sort of Jeh's foil. I guess I am worthless. Fleet Command (talk) 12:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@FleetCommand: I'm not sure I understand, if I could get everybody happy by reverting, then I would (I just suspect I would be reverted just like Lisa). As I said, I do not mind that I was reverted. I'm not in the way of consensus so I'm not sure it's my place to do anything even if I made the change. I'm not per se against DMY consensus (or MDY consensus) in the main text. It wasn't consistent either way. For the refs, I would prefer every article not be inconsistent with the main text, but if the rules say refs can be e.g. MDY (not just YMD) while main text is DMY, then I'll follow the rules (at least that might be a battle elsewhere). comp.arch (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Comp.arch: It is impossible to make everyone happy. But one can make some people happy or leave most of them unhappy. Now, scanning the document, it seem Calidum proposed the mixed style the first. CL says she has no problem with it. You are saying you are okay too. That's a lot of happy people and the principal disputees.

Whatever you do, please investigate and, if appropriate, restore the missing-in-action paragraph first. That is bound to have purely plus effect. Fleet Command (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

If you mean this then that wasn't me :) It seems ok, I'm not an expert on it. I think I've changed enough for now :) If I would revert myself who would object? comp.arch (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@FleetCommand: No, I don't understand why it is permitted to have three different date styles. Or even two. I also don't understand why the date styles used in the article's sources are not considered at all. Jeh (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jeh: Are you implying to you are also willing to gain that understanding? If yes, come to my talk page. It is already started there. Fleet Command (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not believe that MOS:DATEUNIFY was meant to allow both DMY and MDY dates in the same article – indeed, this would be antithetical to the notion of consistency. I have raised this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § MOS:DATEUNIFY allows DMY and MDY in the same article? —sroc 💬 13:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Quite to the contrary. It is its exact purpose. Fleet Command (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

"Apps" vs. "Programs"

So there's quite an edit war going on in this Wiki.

Can we get a consensus on whether to use "apps" or "programs" in this page? I don't think using "apps" on a page for desktop software is appropriate. @Codename Lisa: mentions the Wikipedia "Manual of Style" article, and how "apps" should be used in order to maintain continuity. However, I still don't think that it's appropriate. Can we get some opinions on this? Thanks. Billybobjoe321 (talk) 05:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm of the view that "apps" is used to refer to mobile software, and so Office 2013 is a collection of programs. pcuser42 (talk) 08:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Any more opinions? Billybobjoe321 (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Billybobjoe321: Hello! When you too become a successful editor in Wikipedia (which is not far, judging by your competence), you will inevitably have stalkers who harass you because of your success. 73.40.108.10 is such a stalker. His account is blocked two years ago by ArbCom. So, no, there is no edit war; only harassment and vandalism. The difference is: These instances do not eliminate your entitlement to Wikipedia:Editing policy § Talking and editing policy.

Now, Pcuser42's opinion was correct in 2006, when mobile app was the only kind of "app". Stick around long enough here you find editors who believe "app" refers strictly to "application software". (It was also once correct.) American Dialect Society, however, has acknowledged both: In 2010, "app" was voted as the word of the year, meaning "a software program for a computer or phone operating system".[2]. We had a discussion in Talk:Computer program § Article not a platform for advertising in which I provided 30 sources showing the word "app" is used for computers too.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I understand your point, but if you look at the page for other Office suites, you do not see "apps" either. It's just Office 2013. For continuity reasons, perhaps we should use "programs" instead. How about we ask the OP of the picture? Billybobjoe321 (talk) 06:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

What you call "continuity" is an "other stuff exists/don't exist" argument, the second most hated argument in Wikipedia. And there is no policy or even guideline that say the original uploader's opinion has more or less weight. The word "app" was first placed there on 17:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC) and has been there ever since. Per MOS:STABILITY, it should remain there. I don't go around Wikipedia converting "App" to "Program" or "Program" to "App". Nobody should. How are we going to write articles from neutral point of view if we cannot maintain an unbiased opinion about two words?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 11:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I just started editing on Wikipedia and I just wanted to pop in here and add to this argument on the side of "programs." Multiple websites (such as dictionary.com) show "app" as usually being for mobile devices. Which is why if you use the word "app" some people may be confused about it not being for desktop, but for mobile phones such as the Windows platform. And you (Codename Lisa) reverted my edit without reasoning (a "sock puppet?" Really?) I gave reasoning as to why this edit was justified and should be put as "programs" (which are usually assigned to when talking Personal Computers) instead of "app" (which are usually assigned to when talking mobile devices.)

MrEWhite (talk) 06:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Could we please come to a stalemate on this "Apps" vs. "Programs" ordeal? I have given multiple reasons why it should be "programs" instead of "apps." Including a dictionary definition showing that "apps" are more used for mobile devices.

Thanks,

MrEWhite (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@MrEWhite: One dictionary definition doesn't override previous consensus or reliable sources. If you will look at Codename Lisa's comments above and review the talk page discussion she linked you will find ample (about 30) reliable sources showing that "app" is very commonly used to refer to programs installed on non-mobile devices. That other sources do still commonly say "programs" is acknowledged, but "apps" is demonstrably not wrong, and per WP:STABLE it should therefore be left alone unless there is another wording that is significantly and compellingly better. "Programs", while arguably a correct alternative wording, is not significantly better, in fact is demonstrably a term that is being replaced by "apps". Your opinion does not make it otherwise.

If you want to "end the ordeal", that's easy: see WP:DEADHORSE. Thank you for your understanding.

By the way, a "stalemate" is when neither side wins, which I guess here would mean that we use neither word. Doesn't exactly apply here. Jeh (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I do see that I used incorrect wording with "stalemate" thanks for correcting me onthat. But other dictionaries (such as the Oxford Dictionary) do state that it is usually used as a mobile device application. But at this point, I could see it being used either way. MrEWhite (talk) 02:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The term "app" have been sometimes used to describe traditional desktop applications even before the advent of the modern smartphone. Even in the 80s and 90s, the word "app" is used sometimes in place of programs. This word is simply a shorter way of saying "Application". --NazmusLabs (A small part of a bigger movement to better the world!) (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Re. video memory

The system requirements section links to a redirect, video memory, which is about VRAM. This is not the sort of memory this article is referring to. The VRAM article is about a type of DRAM used in the 1980s and 1990s; this article is referring to how much memory on the graphics card or dedicated to the GPU is required. I can't edit that section to fix this since this article is protected. Could someone please remove the link? AZ1199 (talk) 05:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Microsoft Office 2013. 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://www.webcitation.org/6AlVk9Scf?url=http://blogs.office.com/b/office-next/archive/2012/08/13/the-new-office-expands-file-format-options.aspx to http://blogs.office.com/b/office-next/archive/2012/08/13/the-new-office-expands-file-format-options.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130525074546/http://blogs.office.com/b/office-news/archive/2013/03/06/office-2013-retail-license-agreement-now-transferable.aspx to http://blogs.office.com/b/office-news/archive/2013/03/06/office-2013-retail-license-agreement-now-transferable.aspx

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 10:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

"Microsoft requires an account in order to activate any Office edition from 2013 on."

The claim in the subject above is inaccurate IIRC (and does not cite any source). While this seems to be correct for "normal" activation on the retail channel, I cannot remember needing a Microsoft account to activate Office 2013 on the volume licensing channel via KMS. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/microsoft-365-and-office-resources?ms.officeurl=systemrequirements%3fms.officeurl%3dsystemrequirements&rtc=1#coreui-heading-bsk2pqp only ambiguously states "Certain features require a Microsoft account." for Office 2013, making no difference between different editions (and not even mentioning channels). But https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/why-you-need-a-microsoft-account-with-an-office-for-home-product-d1b81992-d824-4e3f-8351-e2c03172df62 should be a qualifying source supporting the original claim (limited to "Office for home") and at least indirectly my memory on volume licensing activations since it mentions that only "Office Home and Student, Office Home and Business, Office Professional and *some* versions of Office Professional Plus" are affected. So "Office Standard" and some *other* versions of "Office Professional Plus" are not affected. This obviusly correlates with the availability of these two editions on the volume licensing channel with "Office Standard" being available exclusively on this channel. Unfortunately this is no direct confirmation, that the requirement for the Microsoft account depends on the licensing channel. So I am not changing this sentence (yet) to see if somebody else has a better source. 31.19.245.151 (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)