Talk:LibreOffice Writer

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted because... --123465421jhytwretpo98721654 (talk) 12:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

this article is very similar to the article for openoffice, but since openoffice is being discontinued (the trademark is being retired by oracle) and the libreoffice fork is becoming the default successor to openoffice.

ubuntu rhel, suse and google have all switched to libreoffice therefore this software needs its own article, right now the two articles are almost identical since the two apps are almost identical but with time the codebases are diverging (openoffice is no longer being developed)
 * I would have to agree that this article, along with the other LibreOffice suite applications are important. They just need a little love, they shouldn't be deleted before that can be provided!  ~ Euphoria 42  20:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Version history
im thinking of adding a version table like here Microsoft_Word since keeping track of the version history is important and also quite common for software articles, any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123465421jhytwretpo98721654 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure that would work as long as you have refs you can cite for each version. The release notes should suffice for that. - Ahunt (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * And if it's kept up to date. Otherwise it should be deleted. 107.9.45.143 (talk) 04:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion to improve features listing
The features should be divided more or less as follows (here in no particular order) &mdash; -Mardus (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Functions that are common to all major word processing applications;
 * Functions unique to OpenOffice Writer and LibreOffice Writer and shared by both (compared to the industry standard);
 * Functions that set LibreOffice apart from OpenOffice.

LibreOffice is notable
Who says that LibreOffice might not be notable enough for Wikipedia? Even AbiWord has an article!

ZackTheCardshark (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * In Wikipedia "notability" means specifically that the subject has in depth coverage in third party independent references; see WP:N. This article is quite weak in that regard and it may just be worthwhile looking at merging it into LibreOffice instead of leaving it as a stand-alone article unless some better third party refs can be found. - Ahunt (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LibreOffice Writer. 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/20110622105417/http://www.libreoffice.org/features/writer to https://www.libreoffice.org/features/writer/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Convert almost any format to MediaWiki
Convert almost any format to MediaWiki. It can open almost any file format. It can export to Mediawiki: File menu > export > save as type > MediaWiki. It will save the file as a .txt file which can be opened with any text editor. Copy the wiki code from the text file.

See diff. Edit summary: WP:NOTHOWTO.

That says this: "Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not."

Rather than be a clueless deletionist and revert warrior, you could have fixed it and taken it out of the imperative tone. But since you WP:OWN this page others can deal with it. I was just trying to help, and will be taking this page off of my watchlist. -- Timeshifter (talk) 06:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Focus on the start of the section of the policy instead:
 * "While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an article should not read like a "how-to" style owner's manual, cookbook, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes."
 * so explain how the step-by-step instructions do not qualify as a tutorial or an instruction manual rather than resort to name-calling. Show instead reliable, secondary sources that discuss it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)