Talk:Microsoft Office 2016

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrosoftWikipedia:WikiProject MicrosoftTemplate:WikiProject MicrosoftMicrosoft articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Software: Computing

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

This page was nominated for deletion on 31 January 2015. The result of the discussion was keep.

untitled

Latest preview release build number is 16.0.4027.1005 as of 20May2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardb20 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Office 2016 published

For the Mac, the Office 2016 suite is already published, but this is not mentioned here and the article shall be updated. --Filzstift (talk) 05:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unintelligible table

Hey. I just deleted an unintelligible table from the article because it is impossible to understand what it is saying. But if anyone that know what it means can help improve it, I have no objections.

Fleet Command (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It is not exactly unintelligible to me. Left column includes the things that the author has felt Outlook must support. Right column indicates whether they are supported; the answer is "Yes", "No" or the name of a protocol that insinuates partial support. There are several problems with it:

Both columns may contain the name of a protocol at one occasion. Hence the content are not homogeneous.
The inclusion criteria is the original author's feelings. There are hundreds of mail services and protocols that Outlook does not support, e.g. Yahoo! Mail or mail services over WebDav or DeltaSync. Why are they not listed there?
It is unclear why the original author has thought that some of these items are partially supported. For example, in case of Gmail, I don't think there is a more comprehensive protocol for accessing it. IMAP is the limit. You might say Gmail supports POP3 too. Well, according to one of the sources, Outlook for Mac supports POP3 as well.
Some items need source.

In general, this table is waste of space. Its contents can be better expressed in one or two sentences.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 18:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Office 2016 Themes

The article currently states that the "White" and "Dark Gray" themes from Office 2013 are also included. Since it is discussing design changes, I think it is worth noting that the Dark Gray theme has been revised. In Office 2013, the "Dark Gray" theme was only slightly dimmer than "White", a big issue for many users; some even went so far as editing the binaries to produce a dark theme. In Office 2016, the "Dark Gray" theme actually consists of a collection of dark grays, as expected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.23.92.100 (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Predecessor

> The user interface design of Office 2016 is relatively unchanged from its predecessor, Office 2013.

Office 2013 isn't really a predecessor product, it's more of a cousin or sister product. If you're using Office 2016 for Mac you are likely upgrading from Office 2011 as that is on the same OS. Office 2013 would require a virtual machine to run. I'd put in a better wording myself if I could phrase something elegantly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Empaler (talk • contribs) 07:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

The full name of the Mac version of this product is "Microsoft Office 2016 for Mac". The full name of the Windows version is "Microsoft Office 2016". Hence, yes, Office 2013 is the direct predecessor of Office 2016. Even if the Mac was called "Office 2016", disregarding the chain of hyponymy would be an informal fallacy that you are deliberately committing.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 11:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Office Insider

Hi everybody, Microsoft has an Office Insider program now where they will deliver new Office builds similar to what they are doing with Windows 10. We have a Windows Insider article, should we also have an Office Insider article? Including a table of builds like with Windows 10? I've been speculating on creating one, but I'm unsure. Office has released one build of the Insider program to date. Thanks! wywyit

Office 2016 Windows Version Number

Hi, I recently added the version number for the Windows version of Office 2016. However, there is no release log like there was in the 2013 release, it only points the user to a support page. Any ideas of a reliable reference source for these versions? Wagnerp16 (talk) 09:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wagnerp16. There is something you should know: I had to spend two and half an hour sifting through your source and the twenty five articles attached to it. So, I assume good faith in you and you send me on a wild goose chase? Right now, I think you are a very cruel person. If there is no source, then don't write it. It is that simple.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Codename Lisa

I apologise for misdirecting you, however the way that I found the source was going through the linked source on the OS X version which has a similar issue, so I don't know if that source should be removed? I assume in good faith that you don't have the 2016 release, but it directs the user to https://support.office.com/en-us/article/What-s-New-and-Improved-in-Office-2016-for-Office-365-95c8d81d-08ba-42c1-914f-bca4603e1426?ui=en-US&rs=en-US&ad=US&fromAR=1 when they click 'view updates'. I'm somewhat scratching my head as to why Microsoft does not publish the release numbers like what they did with the 2013 release.

(EDIT: I've found a verifiable source here: https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/office/mt465751)

All the best,

Wagnerp16 (talk) 08:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again

The TechNet source is good. I will go ahead and embed it into the article if you have not done so already. (I am yet to see.) Of course, I myself haven't received the 6001 build yet; my Office 2016 is on build 4300 and Windows Update has nothing to offer. But in general, Office 365 distributes updates much faster than Windows Update.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 02:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again

I think the problem here is the same issue that we have with Windows 10 in regards to the rings. This is because I'm running the Insider Preview which is 6366.2025 as of 6 December 2015.

All the best,

Wagnerp16 (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed Alpha Werewolf changed the latest version number to 16.0.6366.2036. I don't see this version number in the source given.[1] The latest number that I see is 16.0.6001.1038. But I see a Microsoft announcement announcing 16.0.6366.2036 for Office Insiders.[2] This version number should go to |latest preview version= field. Fleet Command (talk) 13:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Custom installation disabled?

Hello, everyone

We have a contributor who insists Microsoft has disabled custom installation of Office in Office 2016. (Hello, 806f0F; are you reading this?) However, I took this screenshot from our Office installation program:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8tNkKG_EzjZRUJPbVFlZ01ncEE

Looks like the ability is still intact. The setup program was digitally signed by Microsoft. Am I missing something?

Pinging potentially informed parties: ViperSnake151, Jeh, comp.arch, Jasper Deng

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your screenshot looks the same as I saw when I installed it, on two different machines. Jeh (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked around the web a little. I found these:

It seems Microsoft has made it harder for the Click-to-Run versions to customize the installation but it is not impossible. Meanwhile the contested contribution reads: "Office 2016 also removes the ability to install only some office components, only allowing installation of the entire suite of Office programs". This is definitely not the case, as MSI-based installation is still available and Click-to-Run versions can also be customized.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft, the company that makes Office, has said:

https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Can-I-do-a-custom-install-of-individual-Office-suite-applications-1eede13d-3426-40cc-b30b-9aa40226bb9e

"In Office 2013 and Office 2016 you can’t custom select which Office applications you want to install".

The fact that there's a hack where you download a custom installer and hand-edit an XML script:

http://www.askvg.com/tip-customize-microsoft-office-click-to-run-c2r-setup-to-install-selected-programs-only/

as per the link you provided doesn't negate Microsoft's own documentation saying that there's no option to do a custom install, hacking a custom installer by editing its XML script isn't any kind of normal install. You asked for an authoritative reference, this is the documentation page from the company that produced Office. The fact that you personally found some way to get around this doesn't mean that anyone else can. Again, the authoritative source for this, Microsoft, the company that produces Office, have said that this isn't officially supported.

Please don't put word in my mouth; I didn't ask authoritative reference. In fact, in Wikipedia, "Official" is taboo word; "official" sources are all WP:PRIMARY and discouraged. That said, the software itself is also a source for behavior that can be easily observed, and as you see, Jeh and I has easily observed them. In short, you don't get to screw Wikipedia with a poorly written sentence from Microsoft.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove the extra link for office version for windows as that doesn't work all the time as intended when it comes to updating information and just have it all on the one page itself. 2601:85:4400:F033:8CA9:1452:D229:5C4D (talk) 00:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Your suggestion is unclear. Nihlus 02:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nihlus: His request is very clear to me: Disable fetching version data from Template:Latest stable software release/Microsoft Office 2016 and include those info in the page itself. He has been edit warring to do this, because he does not know why we have included this information in that page in the first place. And that's why the page is protected now.

@2601:85:4400:F033:8CA9:1452:D229:5C4D: If you have problem loading the page, please explain when and how; we will help you fix it. But getting rid of that is not going to happen. Also, if you want to know why we have done this, just ask.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 05:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The links for works for me and apparently works for Codename Lisa and a lot of other editors too. (Because I can see that they have edited them.) So, 601:85:4400:F033:8CA9:1452:D229:5C4D, if you have problem, please explain it. We can always help. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 16:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove the external templates for the version numbers for both office for windows and mac and just place the version number in the chart with the rest of information there. The external template doesn't work and does not update the main page. I have screenshots proving this statement correct and you can look yourself. 2601:85:4400:F033:9DA2:15C0:D085:11A2 (talk) 01:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The answer won't change because you continually ask. If the right version doesn't show after the template is edited, then purge the cache of the page. Nihlus 01:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tried that, doesn't work — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:85:4400:F033:9DA2:15C0:D085:11A2 (talk)

It does because I just did it. Nihlus 01:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't work for me. Also, shouldn't have to do it every time an edit gets made just to attempt to make it look ok on my side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:85:4400:F033:9DA2:15C0:D085:11A2 (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also believe the purge the cache is important and should be added to the tools section on the left side of the page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:85:4400:f033:9da2:15c0:d085:11a2 (talk) 02:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

In this diff and a guest editor from 180.151.163.39 has made a bad change to the article that is difficult to detect because of a lot of whitespace changes. But those of you who have WikiEdDiff gadget or use Meld can see it immediately: Wrong operating system name is added to the infobox.

In this 2nd diff, Codename Lisa has reverted it. Uncontroversial. Reverting a mistake is no big a deal.

In this 3rd diff, a certain well-known vandal (whose IP addresses are known) has counter-reverted Codename Lisa. This certain person is known to chase around and harass editors who contribute to computing area. He (or maybe she) is known to tell lies; not lies that are difficult to see through, but since almost nobody tells such blatant lies in Wikipedia, it may be new. I reinstated the typo-less version.

FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 09:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]