Talk:Microsoft Word

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of Computing WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to computers and computing. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an rating on the importance scale.

The first sentence reads "Microsoft Word is Microsoft's flagship word processing software."flagship" is awkward. I don't disagree that it is MS's flagship, it just seems that less colorful language would be better Lloydbudd (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] MS word 07

I made the product and i thought maybe i should add a few more features of ms word 07 in order to make it more informative...

 Any Comments ?? Kalivd 06:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
This material is very biased and ranting. The default file formats for Word 2007 are the Open XML formats.Rick Jelliffe 14:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


On a personal note, I'd be most pleased to see a small entry about Word 2007's COMPULSORY "new and improved" user interface under the "features and flaws" section. I'm not the only long time served MS Office user who's been alternately baffled and heavily p***ed off by not being able to quickly and easily access certain random features from simple to advanced as they're seemingly not worthy of a place on the "ribbon", prominent or otherwise... and the normal menu bar has been completely done away with... forming a UI design break on the level of moving from DOS to Windows, which from the screenshots would seem to be unprecedented in more than 20 years of the software being in use (even the DOS versions had the menus laid out in a similar way to that in 2003). Except most of the stuff you needed to do in windows was quite obvious and had simple analogues, rather than being the same thing in a jiggered-about and obscured manner (I suppose I could complain similarly about a number of techie or UI based things going from 9x to XP as well, but less seriously - MS are on a campaign of needless dumbing-down, given that I haven't met many people who had serious trouble getting to grips with 9x or Office?). OK, you could argue that I don't have to upgrade my home system in a hurry, but it's coming in rapidly to various corporate establishments (inc. a school I briefly worked at), and without having it at home to practice on, a serious professional disadvantage is engendered. Did anyone in Redmond think this through properly before swapping in one well-worn interface for another barely-tested one wholesale, instead of having it as an option?
It's at LEAST as annoying/crippling/detrimental to productivity as the numbering/bulleting bugs, and those have previously driven me to the brink of total distraction when (to digress further for a moment) having to do some intricate editing on a large number of documents that included complex numbered/lettered lists (duplicating each page to allow printing multiple copies on one sheet where both word and the printer driver didn't offer the right combination of facilities). A job that should be a fifteen-second and entirely keyboard-driven "load, select-all, copy, ctrl-end, insert break, paste, save, print" series being dragged out to several minutes as innumerate corrections have to be instigated via the format\bullets command and double checked, for each document concerned. How can one seemingly simple part of a highly developed professional product operate in such a mind boggling and dislogical fashion?
Also I'd suggest the picture-position handling code for this section as it often goes wandering off into the further fields of logic-defying bizzarity that has one reaching for the vodka, or if fortunate enough to possess it, a better-behaved full-DTP application to format the one or two critical pages --- all for the reason that a simple clipart won't stay sat in the rough area you need it to be in an otherwise simple document, particularly when you wish it to sit at a certain place within flowed text, rather than just inlined HTML-style with a left/right/centre justification.
Granted, the rest of it actually hangs together very well and works pretty efficiently for the feature bloat (all of office 2003 student/teacher edition fitting well within the bounds of a single CD, and installing in about 150mb, and office 2000 running with consummate smoothness on an old 32mb Pentium 60), but these small odds and sods that are regularly buffed up against in daily use of the application are well worthy of inclusion as warnings to the potential user! The devil is in the detail after all...
PS any insinuation that the software is simply balking at my awful use of grammar and punctuation is fair comment, but unlikely to hold water :D
PPS If some of this seems to be missing a point or doesn't hang together well, i've re-opened it to edit an error i spotted, but can't any more identify where it is :-/ 82.46.180.56 (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alternatives

I think we should create a list of alternatives for Word, we could use the List_of_word_processors as a starting point.

Ooh and what is the difference between word processor and List_of_word_processors?

There has been some talk about this: --seweso 12:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


There are some free alternatives, like KWord, AbiWord, TeX and Openoffice.

I removed this, as this is an article about MS Word. Adding free alternatives is quite close to advocating free software. Also, none of the programs listed is a true alternative to Word. TeX is a typesetting system, not a wordprocessor. Kword and AbiWord are nowhere near Word's functionality, and OpenOffice is incomplete (last I checked, it had no spellchecker, as Sun did not hold the copyright on StarOffice's spellchecker code). A better approach would be to list other wordprocessing programs (not just open source ones!) in a "see also" section. --Stephen Gilbert

The release versions (1.0+) of OpenOffice.org do have a spell checker, though some early developer's releases did not. --Brion


"I think that MS Word is one of the best applications I used if not the best of all." 82.114.178.3 19:15, 18 May 2006

[edit] MS-DOS Ruler?

Question: Did Microsoft Word for MS-DOS have a "ruler", or did that feature appear first in the Macintosh version?

Yes it did (I used WordDOS from 1.0 onward), and it looked something like this:

|----|----|----|----|

I think there was a numerical option as well:

0....5....10....15....20

...as it was a character-based display. Later DOS versions had a graphical version as well, depending on what kind of a graphics card you had. (Mine wasn't supported...) --ProhibitOnions 21:44, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)

[edit] Photo IBM PC running Word

FYI: for a photo of original IBM PC running Word, see here. --tyomitch 21:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other ramblings

Stephen Gilbert: Ok, better let them be listed in word processor (tuxisuau)

---

A side-thought: it'd be nice for someone to develop a discussion on the Microsoft Mouse and its history. Compare its development with that of the one-button Apple mouse. No contest.

---

Word and MS' first spreadsheet program MultiPlan both shared a very similar look when they came out, using the same two-line command interface at the bottom of the screen; the 'feel' of the two programs was very similar, implying that Word was first developed by Bill's MultiPlan team. MultiPlan was boosted by Bill Gates who envied Lotus 1-2-3, but was disappointed by MultiPlan's inability to compete. Buoyed by his successes in writing early programs for the Macintosh, I think Bill gritted his teeth and resolved to bring out graphically based versions of Word and Excel/MultiPlan to leapfrog Lotus. An early sign of this resolve was the introduction of the Microsoft Mouse (which, btw, worked with the text version of Word). Other attempts at mouse products for the PC were unsuccessful. Bill's resolve to make Excel and Word probably motivated the development of Windows.

MultiPlan predates 1-2-3, if I recall correctly. An early version of Multiplan was even available for CP/M machines. --Robert Merkel

Most of Microsoft's products have been bought from other companies. Anyone know the origin of Word and whether this is true for it?

  • On the Microsoft Mac Business Unit [1] website, it says that "In 1984, Microsoft releases Word 1.0 and it becomes one of the world’s most popular word processing programs." It doesn't say they actually developed it so I do not know. 1189 19:40, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This PDF [2] states that BravoX, a predecessor to the Star it's Document Editor, was the direct predecessort of MS Word. You do not always need to buy such products as you can simply hire the orginal developers.

Removed (in reference to Word 6 for Windows) numbered to indicate that it also superceded Word 5 for DOS because it is obviously untrue. Word 5 for DOS was replaced by Word 6 for DOS. Replaced it with an explanation that fits much better with the observable facts. Tannin

I don't think 'numbered "6" to imply a superiority to Word Perfect 5.1' in the Word 6 for Windows bullet is NPOV. Microsoft claims they numbered it 6 to line up its versioning numbers with the Mac version of Word. Word 6 for Windows had a modified file format that, for the first time, matched Word for the Mac. I don't really care if we include the file-format info or not, but the statement as it stands doesn't seem NPOV. Anyone else? -Frecklefoot
AFAIK it was to bring Win / DOS / Mac version into line. DOS was up to 5.5, so the first combined version was 6 -- Tarquin 19:22 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)
Yes, the version 6 was to bring the Windows version number to parity with the DOS and Mac version numbers. This should be changed. -- Talk:Fireball1244 4:07 Nov 2, 2003 (CST)

Wrom: WIGYOKSTTZRCLBD

While the article may be considered correct in terms of sequence, it is my perception that the original Word for Macintosh was an independently created program with a different set of features than that of Word for DOS. So, considering Word for the Mac as a 'port' is not actually correct. My (biased!) interpretation & recollection is that the current Word is based on Word for the Mac, at least as comes to features and user interface. Cannot comment on code (!) but at the time of Word for the Mac 1.x, Pascal (MPW) was the dominating programming language for the Macintosh.

I'm going from memory too, but as I recall the sequence was:
1: Word written and marketed for the Mac by a non-Microsoft company
2: Microsoft buy them out
3: Microsoft produce a DOS version
4: Microsoft produce a Windows version
5: DOS version is dropped
6: Mac version is dropped, restored, ignored, forgotten about until no-one cares anymore
Tannin

[edit] Future versions

The article contained this:

  • Word 2004, also known as Word 12 and officially titled Microsoft Office Word 2004
  • Word 2005, also known as Word 13 and officially titled Microsoft Office Word 2005

I wondered if they should really be in that list - are they speculative, confirmed, or what? Certainly you can't buy them, can you? If not, I think it makes the list misleading. Maybe, if someone feels they are good and accurate content, they should be reintroduced under a separate subhead? Or something?? Nevilley 00:50, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I would guess it was a newbie test. It's 217.81.175.4 sole contribution. --Mrwojo 03:04, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Ah. Good point, thank you. Nevilley 07:45, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] meta data

Someone with a better knowledge of the history than I have should perhaps write a section on how the 'meta data' (I believe it's called) stored in .doc files has occasionally been newsworthy: aspects of the Hutton Inquiry became public when Downing Street documents were searched for older-version information, and a similar thing happened with SCO's plan for their lawsuit against UNIX-derivatives.

[edit] advice

However, this capability can also be used to embed viruses in documents, as was demonstrated by the Melissa worm. Because of this, users having Microsoft Word installed should refrain from having it configured to open Microsoft Word documents received -- by email or otherwise -- from untrusted sources. Are we in any position to say this? I would say it should be rephrased with a thing saying "Most analysts agree that users having Microsoft Word installed should refrain..." [maestro] 09:44, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Better advice would be to adjust your security settings in such a way that only macros from trusted sources can be executed. Shinobu 03:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Headings

Would anyone be in favor of the occasional heading or title in this article? Ojw 19:13, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Books

A book has been newly listed at the end of this article

Amazon lists 1404 books about MS-Word, what's special about this one? Ojw 13:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • I suggest that if any books are linked from here, they should be general books on the development of office, office interoperability, and/or the history of the office suite (assuing we can't get books on Word specifically) -- I don't see what's special about the book either, and suggest deletion unless someone substantiates it. EggplantWizard 19:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Of course, the ideal type of book to link to would be a WikiBook... Ojw 20:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Format and Headings

This article badly needs more segregation -- I've added some headings with my most recent revision, and I feel that the article is now better -- however, it still needs a lot more work, and I don't think that the categories I chose are the best way to approach this in the long run. I'd like to start a dialogue about how best to format the article, and then ideally get the right pieces moved into the right sections based on consensus opinion of what's easiest to follow. EggplantWizard 19:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] in addition

[edit] Office 6

I wonder if it should be mentioned that on the Mac, Office 2001 wasn't actually smaller or faster than Office 6, just that the hardware had improved over 5 years or whatever it was. --Steven Fisher 06:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Determining the Word Version of a Document

I'm not sure but I think this link would be interesting. Should I add it?

Don't know how useful it is. I also wonder wether it is the kind of information you'd expect in an encyclopedia. External link? Shinobu 03:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Features" section?

Doing a parallel read between the entry for MS Word and Apple's Pages I noticed that the former lacks a proper "Features" section while the latter has one. While the difficulty of working with the .doc format is thoroughly discussed, there is no mentioning in the actual capabilities of the program (like for example the ability to automatically generate a contents table or "accept data from Excel, Powerpoint or Access") nor are any shortcomings mentioned that make it's use uncomfortable (like it's instability as a program or the heavy requirements given that it is a word processor).

212.205.234.7 22:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mac Word history

I've updated the history of Word for the Macintosh based on personal involvement with the project. Sorry I don't have as much detail on the other versions.

The code history:

DOS Word 2 was the basis of Mac Word 1

So DOS Word 2 was written in Pascal? Lars T. 22:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Mac Word 4 was the basis for Windows Word 1 (they actually shared about half the Mac Word code; that was a disaster)

Mac Word 5 and Windows Word 2 were the bases for Pyramid, which was cancelled

Mac Word 6 was Windows Word 6 running on a Windows emulator for the Mac

[edit] de facto standard

I snip the part about "de facto standard" because it reveals nothing about the program. Here it is:

Microsoft Word is the dominant word processor in current use, making Word's proprietary document file format (DOC) the de facto standard which competing products must support to interoperate in an office environment.

[edit] Word 2006??

The article says: "Versions for Microsoft Windows include ... Word 2006, known as Word 12."

I see no hint of the existence of such a product at http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/FX010857991033.aspx or elsewhere on the MS site. —Urielw 20:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Try Office 2007. It's unoffically called Office 12. See http://www.microsoft.com/office/preview/default.mspx --Jkonrath 19:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually that is its BETA Release name before it was named Office 2007--Oliver Davison 23:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge "The present" and "File format"

A proposal. Atatncnu 02:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just a bit of discontent

Word's Thesaurus has a slight problem, which is that it doesn't realize that if A is a synonym of B then B is a synonym of A. Anyone know why this is? (I am having difficulty maintaining NPOV - my copy of MSWord crashes after you have typed three characters or so)88.109.15.239 19:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that putting the adjective "crash-prone" in the lead of this article would in fact be NPOV. A fact isn't POV when it's just an everyday fact of life for millions of people. I know I'd get shot down if I tried to actually implement this idea. "The emperor has no clothes" is POV in the emperor's eyes. — ¾-10 16:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Will the real Word guru please stand up?

... and message me on my talk. I want to do a weird customization of Word for Mac 2001; I want to change the "Backup of" string but I don't know where this is stored. John Reid 10:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RTF

This is incorrect: "RTF remains an optional format for Word that retains all formatting and content of the original document."

AFAIK, many things like diagrams and charts are lost through RFT conversion. Layout is also not faithfully maintained. (columns are broken etc.) --Espoo 08:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nav bar

Why does the navbar at the bottom not include Entourage or Messenger? - ElAmericano (dímelo) 02:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Title

Why is this article named Microsoft Office Word, when all the other office apps have the word Office omitted? I think that Office should not be included in the title. Most people know the product as Microsoft Word rather than Microsoft Office Word. Word is, indeed, the name of the application and Office is simply the package within which it is sold. Has anyone else an opinion on this? Ralphy 18:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

MS does now refer to this app as "microsoft offfice word" (look in the about dialog for instance. Is there a policy on what to do when the estabilished name for a product differs from the makers current name? Plugwash 18:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Not all of the other Office applications have the word "Office" ommitted. The article names should be as accurate as possible in its naming. Redirects along with some prose can explain older names like "Word for Windows" and "Microsoft Word". Warrens 19:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of how this particular discussion turns out, the article should be updated to mention the name issue. For instance, the 2004 Mac version is named (in various places) Microsoft Word, Microsoft® Word 2004 for Mac and Word:Mac, but never Microsoft Office Word 2004. --Steven Fisher 22:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree the title should be Microsoft Word -- I've also started a discussion on the Microsoft Excel talk page| Cliffb 01:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, Microsoft Word is not always sold with office. It can be be purchased either by itself, or with Microsoft Works, as not all people want all of the office programs, but still need a word proccessor. So, putting "office" in the title is not neccessary, because although it is technically microsoft office word, it doesn't always come bundled with office. --Kormerant 23:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The "Office" is a form of emphasis of the product's inclusion in Office, not a formal part of the product name; but as it is also sold separately, with Works, and for the Mac, the inclusion of Office in the title is incongruous. Microsoft itself refers to it as "Word" not "Office Word" [3]. I shall rename the article.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 09:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Word 2007 Link?

Shouldn't there be a link here to Microsoft Office 2007? The beta's out now, and Microsoft has called it the most significant update in a decade. I think this qualifies it for at least a bare mention. Auricfuzz 22:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Info box

I'd like to propose we split the Info box into one for each platform. The reason is that the box is already a little unwieldy, and is missing important information. The current version Microsoft Word for Mac OS X, for instance, is v2004 11.2.5 (2006-07-11). The two products also have different websites, different logos, and different screen designs. Having two infoboxes just makes sense to me. -- Steven Fisher 17:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made this change, plus added some additional details that were too awkward to add before. Note that I appear to have been wrong in my last comment; the 11.2.5 update doesn't seem to have included a new Word. -- Steven Fisher 17:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] truetype ligatures

I have never used Word in the past, but I have to deal with Word documents now at work. When I found that Word doesn't cope with TrueType ligature glyphs, I at first refused to believe it. I mean, TrueType has been in use since when, 1991? Then I found out that OpenOffice supports them without problem. It is simply beyond me how a $230 application can lack such basic functionality, especially seeing that it is provided byt its $0 competition as a matter of course. Now it appears that Uniscribe has some support for context shaping. It apparently just refuses to apply it to Latin script. Can I conceivably trick Word somehow into using a font's ligature/precomposed glyphs repertoire, e.g. by making it believe the script is not Latin or similar? This may not be straightforward, as the fontforge manual tells us that

Microsoft tries to document what features they apply for which scripts in Uniscribe, but that isn't very helpful since Word and Office have quite different behavior than the default.

That seems to mean that Microsoft documents one thing, and their applications do something entirely different. This reduces me to trial and error. Is there any information available surrounding this? dab (ᛏ) 18:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction in section Word 1983 to 1990

Many concepts and ideas were brought from Bravo, the original GUI word processor developed at Xerox PARC, to the original Mac version, which was the first Word version to use a graphical user interface, and the later Word for Windows. Bravo's creator Charles Simonyi left PARC to work for Microsoft in 1981. Simonyi hired Brodie, who had worked with him on Bravo, away from PARC that summer.

seems to be contradicted by the next paragraph

Word for Macintosh, despite the major differences in look and feel from the DOS version, was ported by Ken Shapiro with only minor changes from the DOS source code,[citation needed] which had been written with high-resolution displays and laser printers in mind although none were yet available to the general public.

The confirmation for the port with only minor changes is also still missing — minor changes would include a rewrite in a different language/ISA. Lars T. 14:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exporting mediawiki content to MS Word

Is this possible ? tools ? Wizzy…☎ 13:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Why would you want it? The Word format is a proprietary format, you should use open formats instead. "Exporting" MediaWiki content to HTML is simple: simply use the "printable version" link. - Sikon 15:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • in firefox (or ie probbablly but i don't use IE) hit the printable version link then go to file save, make sure web page complete is selected and save it. Then load the result into word. The result will need some cleanup but it at least seems to be readable. Plugwash 01:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mozilla Firefox and Word Web Pages

Do you know that Mozilla Firefox doesn't show properly web pages, created with Microsoft Word? Example: [4]

When I look at that page in IE the images are not appearing. In Firefox the page displays correctly. Shinobu 17:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
How odd to say I tested it in Internet Explorer, problems also appear in Opera Browser. Perhaps this is down to a mishap with HTML or just that Word isn't suppoted in the browser in know myself front page works sufficiently. Oliver Davison 18:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Complaints in the Word 1981-1990 section

In the second half of the third paragraph of this section, a list of complaints begins with the note that WordPerfect is "a superior program for word processing only," and proceeds to list a number of reasons why. This seems to belong elsewhere, or maybe nowhere considering there are no citations for it. --joeOnSunset 07:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Role in fighting crime

I like this section. However, I think the title for it is extremely lame. Does anyone have a better idea for it? Would "Word in the news" work? --Steven Fisher 05:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Word version 2–2003

In the formats section appears "Word version 2–2003". Is this correct? Shouldn't it be Word version 97-2003? mferreira

[edit] almost perfect

Almost perfect has a ton of tiny tidbits about word history: http://www.wordplace.com/ap/ And it's fun read. Fun and tragic. 212.213.204.99 19:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too much on Easter Eggs etc.?

I reckon this article has too much on Word's easter eggs - beyond what could be considered encyclopedic. Easter eggs are more of a fad interest - perhaps this section could be summarised? For example, there is one line on 'Bullets and Numbering', but a large section dedicated to how the undocumented =rand(x,y) function works - interesting stuff (I enjoy easter eggs and can see how editors might have been tempted to include this info!) - but probably not appropriate for an encyclopedia? --Christopher 19:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is too much on the rand function. But, since these are no-longer being added to software in my opinion they are encylopeadic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pearce jj (talk • contribs) 10:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I see we've been moved again.

Needs to get moved back to Microsoft Word. But that won't solve anything, since it'll just get moved back again by someone else who thinks he's the first person to catch on to the official product name on Windows. Time for some level of protection, maybe? --Steven Fisher 18:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hear hear! +Hexagon1 (t) 11:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Auto-Summary

Could someone please make an article about Auto-Summary? Or insert it into the article? rabmny 19:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is there a reason why the MS Word screenshot has been removed?

Well, is there? It used to be there. Have the over-zealous Copyright Enforcer Wikipedians struck again? *rolls eyes* --189.148.84.139 22:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious about this as well...

I added my own screen of 2007 that I took myself...

I hope there aren't any problems with this...

elateral 18:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why don't we have a Vista image?

All other programs have Vista images; this screenshot's caption says its on XP (although it does have that Vista look to it.)–Sidious1701(talk • email • todo) 23:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Who cares? They look the same except for window decorations. - Sikon 15:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Word97pinball.jpg

Image:Word97pinball.jpg 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) 22:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don't ask, don't tell

Seem that MS Word (I use 2003) spell check has a bit of a Don't ask, don't tell policy on "blue" words. I mean words like fuck. It knows how to spell them and will not flag them as misspelled but I could not make any error that would bring up the blue word in the right-click suggestions. I.e., if I write "shitt", it ignores the obvious and gives me "shift", "shirt", etc. I Googled but could not find any mention of this "feature" though it would make an interesting mention in the article. But not without a source – sigh. --Alfadog (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Suppose they don't want to get into trouble for suggesting these words to younger users, e.g. should an eight year old typist slip up when typing something about their favourite shirt... with an additional rationale that if you can't even spell a curseword properly, then on your own head be it! 82.46.180.56 (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving this page and all other Microsoft Office applications to new name as "Microsoft Office Word"

I suggest moving "Microsoft Word" to "Microsoft Office Word" as it's the new name since version 2003 and also moving all other Office applications, i.e. Powerpoint, Excel, etc., since some articles (e.g. Microsoft Outlook) is already named Microsoft Office Outlook on it's infobox.

GeekGod™ 09:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

agree - oahiyeel talk 20:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
This article is about all versions of Word, including those never came with any version of Office. - Josh (talk | contribs) 16:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:MS Office 2003 Word screenshot.PNG

Image:MS Office 2003 Word screenshot.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 06:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MS Office games

Has anybody heard about the hidden games included in Word and Excel in Office97 ? Are there a wiki page about these "cheats" ? :) ThanX

[edit] MS Office games

OK, I discovered the wiki page [[5]].  :)

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.240.82 (talk) 12:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Document exchange section

I deleted most of the document exchange section. The crux of the argument seems to founded on this page, which is basically someone's opinion about why the format should not be used as such. The page basically says, "it's proprietary and I don't like it" and isn't a reliable source. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bulleting bugs

I've removed "It should also be noted that troublesome bulleting and numbering is endemic to other Word processing applications, especially the Openoffice.org Writer application which is especially poor at handling bullets and outline numbering." because it is not true. I composed my entire diploma using complex numbering and indices with a lot of other formatting throughout the text and never encountered any distortion. Meanwhile, I am a long-term Word user so I can say that Word leaves much to be desired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.246.112.87 (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)