Talk:Microsoft Excel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Microsoft Excel article.
Article policies
This article is part of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a WikiProject devoted to maintaining and improving the informative value and quality of Wikipedia's many Microsoft Windows articles.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on WikiProject Microsoft Windows's importance scale.

Contents

[edit] External Links

This section should contain useful links to other websites relating to Microsoft Excel. At the moment there is an certain individual that is removing "useful" links from this section.

Is there any way to prevent this person from making any future changes ? RussellProctor 09:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Russell, you have been promoting your link under Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, and Microsoft PowerPoint. Wikipedia is not a collection of resources (Please see WP:EL), please refrain from adding what has been reverted 3RR. Your adding of links and reverting has previously been warned by an administrator, including impersonating administrationship. See [1]. You have also been vandalising the articles by replacing the url of Microsoft Office page with your own url (Bettersolution.com). Cocoma 10:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Cocoma, Thank you for the response. I can only assume that you do not use Microsoft Office on a regular basis (if at all) and therefore do not appreciate how useful my website is to thousands of people. My time is better spent elsewhere so I will not be changing the links anymore. I would be very interested to know why the following links are allowed though:

Thanks Russell 195.112.19.195 13:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I do use Microsoft Office often, but this is a completely different issue we are talking about here. Your site, does contribute to the usefulness of the article. You have though, been promoting your own links by placing it on top of the rest, without specifying reasons. You have also been vandalising the official link as stated earlier on. If you do take some time to post your discussion on retaining the link on talk page rather than being persistant on adding it back continuously or impersonating administrationship, it would definitely helps IMHO. You might also want to take sometime into reading Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Cocoma 18:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do we want this link? Lessons Learned Automating Excel from .NET 206.188.56.24 20:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good source

A good source of product dates: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=complifeport —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlistairMcMillan (talk • contribs)

Excel can only go 2 IV65536. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.84.157 (talk • contribs)

Just use the letters at the bottom of the page. AlistairMcMillan 04:24, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That link is dead, just to let you know. --tyomitch 00:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reference needed

This promoted development of a new spreadsheet called Excel which started with the intention to, in the words of Doug Klunder, "do everything 1-2-3 does and do it better". This led to the popular rumor that the name "Excel" means "X-out Lotus".

"In Googlis non est, ergo non est" - prove it, I can't find any references —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.0.197 (talk • contribs)

I don't quite know why this quote is still there. I've removed it. I can't find any reference to it. If you put it back, please support with a decent reference. peterl 22:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Nickptar stated in his revision: "Switch images and lists around. Windows is Excel's native platform, ergo it should be above the Mac." Excel came out for the Mac 2 years prior to the Windows version. Which should be first, Mac or Windows? Chronologically and alphabetically the Mac should be first, but Microsoft makes both Windows and Excel. LordBleen 03:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no POV bias towards either Mac or Windows, but I think it's safe to say that 99% of computer users associate Excel with the Windows version of the product. The list simply looks strange with the Mac version listed first. Alexthe5th 06:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gurus section

Just wondering what the Wiki Foundation policy is on self-promotion on this site. There is an "Excel gurus" section on this page that seems to be a list of conusultants that can build Excel solutions for you. I don't think it's an appropriate use of the wiki page to do this.

Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mckoss (talk • contribs)

Yes, let's also remove links to Linus and RMS from Linux page, and links to Miguel and, eh, RMS again from GNOME page. After all they might (and do) do things for money :) Hello? People listed in Excel gurus page contributed a lot to the common Excel knowledge pool. Most of them maintain free pages with tutorials, hints and various time-saving tips... Oh, and if meant Joe Erickson's "subtle" SpreadsheetGear promotion then yes, I agree with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.0.197 (talk • contribs)

I think there is quite a difference between someone who has been intimately involved in the creation of a product, and so forms an integral part of its history, and a third-party consultant that makes their living providing services based on their expertise with that product. I don't think the promotion of the latter is an appropriate use of the wikipedia article about Excel. I believe it falls firmly into the category of spam and should be removed. I reviewed all these Guru references and, while some of them do provide some useful "tips", the basic purpose of these references seemed to be to drive consulting revenue to the authors. None of the references provide any information on the historical development of the Excel, nor are they authoritative references on the use of the Excel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mckoss (talk • contribs)

Mckoss, people like John Walkenbach, Debra Dalgleish and other MVPs in the list you so readily deleted *are* Excel gurus and Excel history. Here are my USD$0.02, feel free buy yourself a much needed clue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.0.197 (talk • contribs)

Joe Erickson came up with a number of spreadsheet innovations later incorporated into Excel by Microsoft. In particular, Wingz for Macintosh was released in 1989 with charts (beautiful 3d charts implemented by Larry Horner), controls and drawing objects on worksheets, the HyperScript programming language (as opposed to Excel and 123's worksheet macros), the ability to define custom functions and more. Later, Mr. Erickson created Formula One which was the first reusable spreadsheet component as well as the first spreadsheet with built-in data validation. Formula One for Java was the first "server spreadsheet" with support for Java Server Pages, Excel Report generation, etc... Formula One and now SpreadsheetGear for .NET have Excel compatible calculation engines implemented by Mr. Erickson with full support for the many quirks of Excel. The number of special cases to deal with array formulas alone is enough that none of the other Excel compatible calculation engines have even bothered to implement them. Rest assured that Mr. Erickson will provide more innovations which will be incorporated into Excel over time. If this does not qualify him as an "Excel Guru", what does? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.95.61 (talk • contribs)

What does? Let me see: contributing to Excel community, writing Excel tutorials and books, helping people in Excel newsgroups, getting Excel MVP title after all... Writing some obscure spreadsheet application and putting 3 links to the same website on Wikipedia Excel page do not qualify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.0.197 (talk • contribs)
It is interesting to note that this debate was started by an individual (not me) who wonders whether creators of a product rather than writers, teachers and supporters of a product should be considered gurus. It is also interesting to note that you justify this Excel Gurus section by mentioning individuals who contribute to the creation of technology, and then you appoint yourself judge and jury to delete someone who has contributed to spreadsheet innovation as a full time obsession since 1984 - innovation which was later adopted by Microsoft in Excel on multiple occasions. And I suppose obscure is in the eye of the beholder (Smart, Wingz and Formula One have generated hundreds of millions of dollars in sales). Ask Bill Gates what he remembers about these products, particularly Wingz. Kind Regards, Joe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.95.61 (talk • contribs)
I disagree with your assertion that "none of the other ... calculation engines ... implement (array formulas' quirks)". My company's product certainly does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.83.235 (talk • contribs)
And the name of your company is...? Ralphy 09:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello there. I'd support removing the entire list of Gurus. If they're people who were important in the development of Excel, they ought to be mentioned and linked from the History section. If they were not, they ought not to be mentioned at all. This is an article about Microsoft Excel, not a directory nor an advertisement. For similar reasons, I'd also advocate removing the list of APIs and Tools in accordance with Wikipedia's style guide on external links (see "Links to normally avoid ... Sites that primarily exist to sell products or services"). Thoughts?? Crebbin 18:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Please go and browse sites listed in the guru section. There is a huge amount of useful and freely available information on these pages. These people really know Excel, they help others in public forums, they write about Excel, they literally live Excel. If your reason to drop them is that you don't know who they are, well in your words, you ought not to be editing this section at all. B-bye! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.80 (talk • contribs)
Eeeeeaasy there big fella. Merely voicing my opinion on the proper content of an article in its talk page. Es incorrecto?
I have had a look at the external links and agree that some (alright, maybe most) of them do provide free information/tools that may be of use to readers of the article. On the other hand, they remain generally commercial sites that exist for the purpose of selling stuff. Hmm. OK what if we keep the links to useful resources, but under the name "Useful Resources" or somesuch, and purge the links to purely commercial sites - ActiveXLS, Add-in Express etc etc? Crebbin 07:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ads for computer programs

The "APIs and Tools" section seems like just a list of advertisement links.

My company's competitor is linked there. May I put a link to my company's product there too? But somehow this whole section seems to be against the WP spirit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.83.235 (talk • contribs)

By all means. Do not feel offended if it is later removed as irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.3.180 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Excel history

I just read a Swedish article interviewing Microsoft Sweden's marketing officer about Excel 2007. There was a question about its history, and he said this (translated from Swedish):

How long has Excel existed?
The first version was released in 1985 and was then called Spread sheet, and made for the Macintosh. Behind the program was Dan Bricklin and Bob Frankston, who studied at MIT. Later, Microsoft took over development.

There was no references to these people in this article, and that the application was originally called "Spread sheet". I'm not sure if he's correct on this and how that would related to VisiCalc (?), and will just comment it here if this can be verified for later inclusion in the article. Here's the source, but it's in Swedish. -- Jugalator 14:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Jugalator, your source appears to be very, very confused: http://dssresources.com/history/sshistory.html. More info: http://www.j-walk.com/ss/history/index.htm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.3.180 (talk • contribs)


[edit] Article title

Shouldn't the title of this article be Microsoft Excel? I don't know of a product named Microsoft Office Excel. True, Excel is a part of Microsoft office. Besides iTunes isn't at iLife iTunes, its just titled iTunes. Cliffb 01:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

While most people do refer to it as Microsoft Excel, Microsoft included, officially it is Microsoft Office Excel. This is proven by the Start Menu shortcuts and when you go to About Microsoft Office Excel. Even though in the title bar it uses the shorthand version, this is to save space. Both terms are in common usage but officially it is Microsoft Office Excel and this is what should be used in the article title and then opening sentence. Harryboyles 08:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, that is not true on the Mac. There, the product is simply Microsoft Excel. It sounds like Cliffb is using a Mac. The intro paragraph as it stands now is confusing for us Mac users. -- Steven Fisher 15:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that having separate articles for the Mac versions of Office software makes the most sense. We really do shortchange these products in terms of providing a clear description of them, and it's only going to become more pronounced in the years to come as future versions of Office come out. This would require a fair bit of work though... maybe someday. :-) Warrens 18:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy is to keep articles at the most common name, regardless of whether it is correct. (eg. Czech Republic (not Czechia), East Timor (not Timor-Leste), and Vietnam (not Viet Nam)). If no-one objects, I intend to move the pages back. +Hexagon1 (t) 10:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Image:Excel.JPG
This article talks mostly about the Windows version. Hence, "Microsoft Office Excel" is the most relevant title. Microsoft did refer to excel as "Microsoft Excel" but that was uptil the Office XP version. Since then, its being called "Microsoft Office Excel". I am against renaming the correct title into an incorrect one. Though its still coloquially referred to as Excel, it is unofficial and all office documentation, as well as the installer and the start menu shortcuts refer it as "Microsoft Office Excel". Calling it differently from what MS does would not be proper, and may even classify as Original Research. And as for it being named differently for Mac, well, I would support a different article. And it is called "Microsoft Excel" or "Microsoft Excel for Mac" (or similar)? --soUmyaSch 12:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Read WP:NC. Specifically WP:NC(CN) Naming conventions clearly state we should keep this at the most common name. Not the technicaly correct one. And saying it classifies as Original Research is preposterous, read WP:OR. Wikipedia conventions in this case clearly side in the MS Excel side. +Hexagon1 (t) 12:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I did not say it is OR, though. I said it might be, because it is a name is used only by people outside the official reference (even though the roots might be from an official name, in the present scenario, it is a wrong usage). Saying that it was cooked up by some editor was not my intention, though. Sorry if it felt so. Btw, search "Microsoft Excel" and "Microsoft Office Excel" — the latter leads to the excel page as the first hit. Also, as I said, in the context of the Windows version, "Microsoft Excel" is wrong usage, even though, I admit, it is more popular. But then, if popularity is the case, then why not just "Excel". People are more likely to say "the graph was created in excel", or "just crunch in the data in excel to see how they relate", or "I use excel to maintain my expenses" and so on. Also Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows Media Player, Internet Explorer don't have "Microsoft" leading them?
Actually, Internet Explorer will officially become Windows Internet Explorer upon release. --Cumbiagermen 03:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Keeping "Microsoft Office Excel" is a better choice imo, as it does provide some disambiguation between win and mac versions. WP:NC(CN) clearly states Titles should be as simple as possible without being too general. "Microsoft Excel" gets too generic (it refers to versions for all platforms for which excel ever existed) considering this article deals mainly with the win version, which is "Microsoft Office Excel". So it should be retained like this and mac version references should be moved out into its own article. --soUmyaSch 13:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
That's foolish, why make different articles for the same programme on different platforms? Moving mac references outside this article would also be extrmely redundant, as it's essentialy exactly the same thing as the Windows version. This article sufficently covers MS Excel, windows or otherwise, and it should be located at the most common name. MS Excel is meant to refer to all versions of the programme, just like MS Windows does (it doesn't mysteriously leave out Windows 98, or 2000). MS Excel 3.0 (OS/2) and MS Excel 97 are the same programme, there are no problems with genralisation causing confusion. +Hexagon1 (t) 04:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Incorrect

"The current version is Excel 11, also called Microsoft Office Excel 2003."

No, the current version is within "Office 2004 for the Mac". And no, this should refer to MS excel on both platforms. The choice to refer this article as the Windows version while clearly referring to the generic version is totally not a NPOV. With an installed user base of 14 - 18% of all desktops it's not sensible to cut out Macs (and no I've not got my figures wrong ... IUB is not the same as market share!)

Candy 13:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This isn't an NPOV problem; the entire history section is about the Windows version, and this is the case for one extremely simple reason: Nobody's taken the time to write a history for the Macintosh version. -/- Warren 15:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I have modified that phrase to be: "The current version for the Windows platform is Excel 11, also called Microsoft Office Excel 2003. The current version for the Mac OS X platform is Microsoft Excel 2004." I think this is factually correct and NPOV. Razvan Socol 04:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Excel Mobile

Should we add it? http://www.microsoft.com/windowsmobile/5/InstalledFeatures/excelmobile.mspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.4.197 (talk • contribs)

Yes, we should (however, I'm not sure if this should be in this article or in a separate one). We should also create an article about Office Mobile (it is referenced as a red link by the Windows Mobile article, which contains some brief information about Excel Mobile). The Pocket PC article states Excel Mobile was previously called Pocket Excel. Razvan Socol 06:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link spam cleaned up

I removed many of the external links in this article. There's way too many links, far in excess of what Wikipedia:External links Wikipedia:Spam would like. Please try talking to me before you just put back all the links. We do not need a dozen links to tips and easter egg sites, let alone ones to competing software that interacts with the program or its file format. --Kevin_b_er 19:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

That was some good work. Well done. -- Steven Fisher 01:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move?

Do you think this should be moved/renamed to Microsoft Office Excel? WBHoenig 22:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Was Quatro First with Pretty Spreadsheets?

This article states text formating by spreadsheets was first performed by Excel. I remember using Borland's Quatro spreadsheet program in the late 80's. It had the ability to format text etc. I used Quatro to create overheads for presentations because it had better looking fonts than the word processors of the day and allowed the use of bit map graphics. In my opinion, the Windows OS was such a kluge that it was unuseable in the 1980's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.12.121.188 (talk • contribs)

[edit] A Picture, Please?

Just wondering if anyone can find anything and properly license it. Because I can't do the licensing or it'll get deleted for sure. Bettyfizzw 02:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable add-ons

Shouldn't tools like 'Analysis ToolKit' be mentioned?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date the Versions of Excel via their suffixes or "save as"

I thought it may be useful if someone could document which versions of Excel came out with different suffixes. In other works, if it is saved as Excel 2.1, what version that would be. Maybe that's a bit much and too arcane, but it sounds like something a person could document and it would be of quasi-historical interest to us computer geeks. 167.206.211.125 17:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Peter L

[edit] Alternatives?

What are the best free alternatives to Excel, in terms of inter-operability (ability to send spreadsheets back and forth to Excel users)?-69.87.194.251 19:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statistical flaws in Excel

What sort of a defence is "the relatively few users who would be affected by these flaws know of them"? How can Excel proponents possibly know this? The problem is that relatively inexperienced users will use the statistical functions and features of Excel without even realizing that they might be flawed. Not all users of statistics are trained statisticians. Even some power users of Excel might be unaware of this issue. DFH 18:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

The criticism section seems very light! Excel has a huge number of flaws which make it much much less usefull than it would otherwise be, especially for any serious mathematical/statistical use.

There has been no major improvement in the functionality of excel in the last 10+ years.

There are many longstanding bugs/annoying features which have never been fixed, some of which are listed below:

  • The way cells are updated means that it is quite possible to have a sheet with only a few thousand entries lock-up when a change is made.
  • There is an arbitrary (and very low) limit of 2^16 cells per column, and 255 rows. This limits the usefulness of excel for many mathematical/statistical purposes.
  • The latest version has less capability than older versions, when it comes to plotting a running average (now limited to 255 points, rather than the previous limit of several thousand points)
  • If a spreadsheet with several thousand data points is modifed a few times, it can grow to several hundred megabytes in size, despite no more data being added. Eventually it grows so slow that it can no longer be used.
  • If cells are deleted at the bottom of a table, the scrolling/graph ranging/etc are never updated, until the spreadsheet is closed/reopened.
  • In older versions, the scroll speed for dragging cells was much too fast to be useful. In new versions, it is much too slow for large ranges.
  • It uses a truly staggering amount of RAM, disk space and CPU time to manipulate a puny amount of data.
  • The graphs in excel have innumerable small quirks and irksome points which make them a pain to use for many tasks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pogsquog (talk • contribs) 10:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
If you have WP:RS for these, feel free to add them. Th row/column limit has been greatly increased in the newest version, so be sure this and other criticism is phrased in such a way as to make it clear whether or not it has been addressed by the developers. --Karnesky 15:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1900

"Excel incorrectly assumes that 1900 is a leap year." Isn't 1900 a leap year? If you divide by 4, you get an even number, which shows that 1900 is a leap year. Also, if you add four years multiple times, you end up in 2004, which was a leap year. Explain how this fact is true. 71.123.133.74

See Leap year. Kuru talk 04:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Excel 2004.png

Image:Excel 2004.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 06:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Secret Game

Does anyone know how to acces the secret flight sim game in Excel 97?The juggreserection 16:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Excel 2007 bug

Like i wrote in my comment when i edited. Underjack pointed out fdiv and f00f, the Excel bug however does not share the same magnitude as those two. At least not in my opinion, since this only affects one value, and the value is maintained correctly in the cell and is only displayed wrongly. I am inclined to agree that this does show a problem in the QA of Microsoft when they review their product, but that is not related to Excel per se. Cloud02 03:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The bug is obviously relevant to Excel--if it belongs in WP, it should be in this article. So: does it belong? Google News shows that this particular Excel bug has received a lot of media attention. It is probably noteworthy enough for inclusion in this article. I don't know if it warrants a separate section, a screen shot, etc.--it is excessive depth that isn't given to the other parts of the article. --Karnesky 04:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe the magnitude of the problem is on par with fdiv and f00f--tempered by the fact that it is software, and it's easier to get a different spreadsheet than a different processor. There are situations, despite MS's claiming it's display only, that the value can get passed on. Using the rounding function is one, saving the speadsheet to a csv file for use with another tool is another.Underjack 11:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The bug was fixed a while ago, why is it still here? Do we plan to document all bugs in all products? :) 131.107.0.73 07:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Excel97.PNG

Image:Excel97.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 03:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] run-time

Some clarification of what is meant by this might be helpful. Is it along the lines of statically linked? DOS/4GW? Or what exactly? --Belg4mit 21:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Summing it up

To dispense with Excel's numerous flaws, I'll reduce it to this:

Inside Excel, there is a cute, little spreadsheet, struggling to get out. Cheers Io (talk) 00:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I recently posted an article about the adCenter Add-in For Excel and it was suggested that it be merged into the Microsoft Excel page. I would disagree with that on the following grounds, the adCenter Add-in is ultimately a keyword research tool that uses Excel as a medium to distribute information (much like Wikipedia uses the Internet (or HTML, etc...) to publish content). While the adCenter Add-in was created by Microsoft, it is not a part of Excel in its default installation, but rather is an available add-in for search engine marketers interested in keyword research. What do you think? Jorie4 (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please rename Criticism section

In my experience "Criticism" sections are POV magnets, and in the end readers don't care who criticizes Excel, but what the actual shortcomings are. So perhaps it's better to rename the section to "Bugs", "Shortcomings", or something similar. This would also make the subsequent "Excel 2007 display issue" a natural subsection, which improves the structure of the article. Shinobu (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Lots of other articles have Criticisms sections, such as Windows Vista. peterl (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)