Talk:Microsoft Office mobile apps

Rewritten

I rewrote most of this article to wikify it, and added references. Brianreading 09:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)as

Screenshots

I'm aware that as of right now, the screenshots in the article are excessive, for the amount of text in the article. This will hopefully be remedied soon as I will attempt to expand the information. I thought the need for consistency in these screenshots superseded the run-off into other sections of the article. Brianreading 19:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Word Mobile.png

Image:Word Mobile.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:OfficePowerPoint.png

The image Image:OfficePowerPoint.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Excel2007.PNG
• File:1note2007.PNG

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Assessment

I've given this article a B. However, I'd recommend some parts be changed to prose. -download | sign! 22:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your assessment and recommendation! Brianreading (talk) 10:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Lunar Calendar View

What's with the Lunar Calender view in Calender. Never heard of such a thing, nor is Google throwing up anything! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.255.74.11 (talk) 07:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia talk pages are specifically for discussion regarding the editing of articles, and not for general discussion of the topic. Brian Reading (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Non-free content review

Hi.

We have several forth-and-back reverts in the article, with User:ТимофейЛееСуда attempting to remove images per Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 44 § Microsoft Office Mobile. User:EndlessCoffee54 has contested this attempt. Therefore, I opened this discussion in hopes of resolving the dispute and preventing an all-out edit war.

The problem with Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 44 § Microsoft Office Mobile is that it is a non-admin closure by User:ТимофейЛееСуда himself, and a closure in violation of the closing guideline of NFCR. The discussion did not have many participants: Only User:Masem and User:Werieth. As such, it does not demonstrate a consensus and should have been closed with no consensus. NFCR is not to be confused with WP:FFD, in which a a different policy is in effect.)

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Given we have a valid NFCR close, and that it was determined that {{non-free review}} shouldnt be placed on articles to garner wider discussion. The policy backed close by ТимофейЛееСуда is valid, and binding. Werieth (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I closed the discussion, as there was consensus that the images violated WP:NFCC. There is not a set number of respondents required to have consensus, and if you look at the history of WP:NFCR there are generally only a couple. Editors had time when they could have opposed, but there was zero opposition to an obvious WP:NFCC violation. Reverting the effects of my closure is going against policy. Starting this discussion is circumventing established process and policy. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

You were not allowed to edit war, no matter what. The closure guideline says that discussions that need deletion need to be handled by an administrator. The later is provisioned exactly for cases such as this, to prevent edit warring. If the closure is indeed binding, you should have contacted an administrator and requested an out-of-band speedy deletion or a deference of closure duty. (The former would have not been granted but the latter would have granted in form of granting the former!)

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I have only attempted to enforce a consensus based discussion. The closing guideline only says "Any uninvolved administrator may close a discussion." It does not say it has to be closed by an administrator. I've closed this and many many more discussions at WP:NFCR in accordance with Wikipedia:Non-admin_closure#Appropriate_closures. There was a clear consensus, and I made the close in accordance with WP:Non-admin closure. You saying that I violated the closing guideline of NFCR is preposterous and plain wrong. If you seriously think I violated this guideline, by all means, have any uninvolved administrator show me where this violation is, and I will happily revert my closure. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

You edit warred; it does not matter how you justify it.

Closures (admin or non-admin) can always be reviewed and consensus can change; that's what we are supposed to be doing here. In fact, we now have a support from Masem and an oppose from EndlessCoffee54. It is prudent to wait for EndlessCoffee54 to state his reasons. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The action of removing the images is completely in line with NFCR. The images would then be tagged as orphaned so that if there was any pending "hey, this image should be kept...", that can be caught there. NFCR closures - save for clearly out of line cases, should not result in image deletion and if it determined that the image should be deleted as a result of what the NFCR ends up being, then FFDs are opened (like here with the action of making the images orphaned). But NFCR is considered a binding consensus like FFD, as previously identified at ANI recently. --MASEM (t) 21:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Quite so, Masem. But you tell me: What happens if another admin come along and undo the admin-only decision you made? You don't wheel war, do you? We now have an edit warring on our hand. What do you suggest we do? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Now you are just using a completely different issue to further EndlessCoffee and now your opinion. This is not a discussion about whether or not I edit warred. If it were, this would be an inappropriate place for you to have it, which you seem to be trying to do, as that is your only argument. The proper place would be your talkpage, my talkpage or if you are serious about accusing me, by all means take that discussion to WP:ANI/EW. If this discussion is about whether or not consensus has changed (in 3 days no less) then that discussion should be at WP:NFCR, since this is a discussion about a non-free file. If the discussion is about whether or not my close was valid, I gave you an easy option to handle that. Talk page discussions generally should be about content. You are attempting to circumvent established process with your discussion. At this point, I'm tired of your inappropriate handling of this "situation" that you have created. Either take appropriate action through one of the many methods I've discussed, or realize that there is no conspiracy here, policy was followed, you jumped the gun and are trying to backtrack, and everyone needs to calm down. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is a discussion to end an ongoing edit warring by you and EndlessCoffee54 by facilitating a WP:DR for the two of you, by having both of you saying what you have and have you two reach a compromise. (WP:ANEW is a place to report either of you two, should you fail to do this.) But I am afraid your comments so far have been ad hominem and battlefield-minded. I'd be sorry to report either of you two.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not weighing in on any edit war discussion since I have not researched the actions thoroughly enough to have an opinion on this, but I will throw my hat in the ring to declare my support for keeping these non-free images in the article. I believe the reasoning behind removing them was because they were "of little interest". That is a subjective conclusion, and one in which I disagree. At the very least, for the sake of WP:COMMONSENSE, this non-free content discussion is not over yet if there are multiple editors who have not weighed in on this, and disagree with the conclusion. Brian Reading (talk) 23:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm in full support of keeping the images because there aren't any free equivalents, but if the images need to be removed because of non-free content guidelines, I won't stand in your way. If the number of screenshots is at issue, a good compromise would be keeping a few images of Office Mobile (like the homescreen, as well as maybe a screenshot of Word and Excel).EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 06:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I said I was done commenting, but I feel that I should say thank you for your civility and your reasonable behavior. Also, the NFCR discussion did come to the conclusion that two of the images should be removed because of failing WP:NFCC, but that same discussion concluded that the homescreen and word and excel screenshots were all acceptable. I do not think anyone wants to remove those, so they are safe as they fit in with the NFCC. Cheers. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

See? Talking is always faster and more efficient than edit warring. In fact, Thumperward was just saying how no one have ever won a discussion with edit warring. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

OneNote error

The article states that Microsoft OneNote Mobile isn't a part of the core office experience on Windows Phone while it is in fact pre-installed and bundled with the system, it's also notably not in the Windows Phone Store, despite what the article says. Furthermore in Windows Phone's settings there is a list of bundled applications of Microsoft Office Mobile and it includes Microsoft OneNote Mobile, the application itself is separate, and the one Office Tile covers Microsoft Word Mobile, Microsoft Excel Mobile, and Microsoft PowerPoint Mobile, but it's not representative of Microsoft Office Mobile, it's simply a client for non-OneNote programmes to run. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.81.201.94 (talk) 14:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Fixed.

Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Office Lens

I have added a link to the Office Lens page which does not exist right now but which I believe deserves to have an article of its own as it does so many amazing things to ordinary photos - it's like having a portable document scanner in your pocket! Anyone interested to start the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Some Gadget Geek (talk • contribs) 23:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Well if you can find enough reliable sources you could write the article, I too find it an amazing application but the reporting on it on major websites is minimal to say at best. --LyThienDao1984 (talk) 10:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Unexplained renamings

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Microsoft Office mobile apps. People in the discussion support making 'Microsoft' part of the name. It is unclear what capitalization the company prefers for 'mobile' and 'apps' but this will do as well as any other. The old title was Office mobile apps (Windows) but nobody here asked for Windows to be part of the title. EdJohnston (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

---

Office mobile apps → Microsoft Office Mobile – WikIan, in the future, could you please not move the page without providing a justifiable reason why the new title is better than the old one? We do not want to have to adapt to such drastic changes when it is not necessary and especially when it is perfectly fine as it was before. Thanks. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 02:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support below alternative Well Office Mobile is no more (discontinued), and per WP:COMMONNAME, I moved the article to reflect that there are multiple apps. See here WikIan -(talk) 02:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support alternative: Microsoft Office mobile apps. The name change is justified, given the recent developments in which the mobile Microsoft Office apps ceased to be part of a suite. However, I am more in favor of Microsoft Office mobile apps because "Office" does not necessarily mean Microsoft. We have Polaris Office, Siag Office, SoftMaker Office, Wang OFFICE, WPS Office, Zoho Office, Feng Office, Ability Office, ConceptDraw Office and Open Office. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support alternative Microsoft Office mobile apps: as noted by the nominator, 'Office' does not have to refer to Microsoft office. There is a reason why Microsoft Office is not just at plain office. Ebonelm (talk) 21:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support, and undiscussed renames like that can be speedily reversed at WP:RMTR. Anyway, "Office mobile apps" failed WP:PRECISE and WP:DAB; it is ambiguous, since it can refer to the mobile apps of any office suite, or indeed any "officey" mobile apps, not just Microsoft Office.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Hello, would you care to change your support to support the alternative as well? WikIan -(talk) 03:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071020043851/http://www.microsoft.com/windowsmobile/help/pocketpc/excelmobile.mspx to http://www.microsoft.com/windowsmobile/help/pocketpc/excelmobile.mspx

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 19:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Microsoft Office mobile apps. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071208161806/http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2005/05/12/windows-mobile-now-with-powerpoint to http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2005/05/12/windows-mobile-now-with-powerpoint
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070610174022/http://asia.cnet.com/reviews/handhelds/ontheradar/0%2C39050970%2C62019010%2C00.htm to http://asia.cnet.com/reviews/handhelds/ontheradar/0,39050970,62019010,00.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150209150657/http://lumiaconversations.microsoft.com/2014/10/06/office-365-onenote-windows-phone/ to http://lumiaconversations.microsoft.com/2014/10/06/office-365-onenote-windows-phone/

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) 11:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)