Talk:OpenOffice Writer

Neutrality dispute
Most of the article focuses on supposed criticisms of the program with almost no consideration of the features. Is this an organized campaign to write this article from a specific point of view, i.e. from a competitor? Like every program, it has its drawbacks, but it certainly isn't as horrific as this article makes it appear to be.

123home123 (talk) 08:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I would have to disagree. After typing my 30 page reseach paper for my history class, I attempted to export to a microsoft document (to allow everyone else to view it) It deleted ("reformated") over 100 end notes allong with thier markers. It didn't save them in another format and leave the text, it completely deleted them. Not that i'm angry or anything (though at the time I was was on the verge of cardiac arrest), i'm just demostrating some of the serious flaws in the program. The only bonus to it is how it is focused around formating - but as the article states, it isn't able to transfer that to any other format without loss. This wouldn't be a problem if most people used OOS, but most people don't, so being able to export and maintain formating is vital. OOS fails in thie respect. Jimmyjones22 (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The only flaw I see here is that few people have OpenOffice installed, so they couldn't see your document. Should have exported to PDF maybe. Eeyore22 (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, I have removed the criticism section for now. It creates an unbalanced view of the subject. 203.97.255.148 (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a section with criticism in Microsoft Word, why not here? Instead of removing content, the article could have been balanced by adding content to the features list and comparing it to other programs, the same way it was done in the criticism section. Anyway, your edit has left the article without a reference. Joshua Issac (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The article is not balanced now that the criticism had been removed without consensus!. Reverting to last revision and editing some of it out. Joshua Issac (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've restored the criticism section and removed some unreferenced parts from it. The article looks balanced to me. Joshua Issac (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I have renamed the subheading to Neutrality dispute. While the Features section should be expanded, it doesn't mean that there is no place for criticism. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to promote software. As far as I can see, the article is neutral. I would like to remove the template – if you oppose, please state it here. Joshua Issac (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am removing the neutrality template. If you object, please state why. Joshua Issac (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms
Most of these criticisms are quite pedantic. I read them and say...so? Even as a Word user. It reads as if it was written mostly as "if you convert from Word, you will have these problems (really minor differences)". Perhaps if their were a convertion fatigue category, or something, to be more blatant about it, instead of the "Criticisms" from a Word users perspective.-Kain Nihil (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I cannot but 100% agree with Kain Nihil. The criticism silently assumes that MS Word it the standard, denying that a document writer program is free to comply with whatever standard it may like. Furthermore, acknowledging how Office Open XML has been standardized, I would say that program is actually free to not follow any standard: no standard is presumably better than an unintelligible one. See also noooxml. ale (talk) 14:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, there's no "Criticism" part in the Microsoft Word article... How surprising !... ceolien 11:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's titled "Features and flaws" rather than Criticism. What, do you suppose Wikipedians are secret Microsoft loyalists?  --Fletcher (talk) 11:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you are, you are wrong Malpass93 (talk) 22:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Not only that -- they are also totally outdated. Using a 2005 article that tested an ancient beta of OOo 2.x to claim "[mail merge is] still less flexible than those of other word processors" is laughable if the article doesnt state that itself _and_ declares OpenOffice.org Writer to the clear winner of the comparison. --84.46.52.193 (talk) 14:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfree image
A screenshot of OpenOffice Writer 3 running on Mac has been used in the article. I feel that this is replaceable by a screenshot of the program running on GNU/Linux. --Joshua Issac (talk) 10:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality 2 (November 2008)
On 5 November 2008, a disputed neutrality tag was added to the article. Would Ronz please state which part(s) on the article is/are not neutral, and why he/she thinks so? --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said in my edit summary, "criticism section is questionable, criticism section with unsourced information is inappropriate". Criticism sections tend to be problematic per WP:STRUCTURE.
 * We only have one source for the article, and that source is disputed. Maybe we should just merge the article into OpenOffice.org and be done with it. --Ronz (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The OpenOffice.org website could be uses as a source for the features section. It would be a primary source, though. There is also the "Normal" view source, which was recently removed after the sentence was re-worded. I thought Linux.com was a reliable source? Could you please tell me why you think it may be unreliable? --Joshua Issac (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If I was sure it wasn't reliable I would have removed it. Why do you think it's reliable? Has it ever been discussed at WP:RSN? --Ronz (talk) 01:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I thought it was reliable because it has a Wikipedia article, it is owned by SourceForge, and because it has the word Linux in the title, it is not likely to be biased against open source software, like OpenOffice.org Writer. I've dropped a note at the noticeboard. --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed the tag per the discussion at RSN. --Ronz (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Ronz. I did not know that such a notice-board existed until you told me. --Joshua Issac (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Criticism 2
The criticism is about the "Normal mode", not the Web mode. This is the removed information:

Writer has been criticized for lacking a pageless editing mode with in which borders and spaces between pages are hidden in order to help editing. This feature is available in Microsoft Word.

Of course, this does match the description of the Web page mode (I think). Normal mode shows page breakes. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Here are some possible sources for the "Reveal codes" criticism:
 * http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewtopic.phtml?t=9696
 * http://wp.openoffice.org/
 * http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8989
 * I'll ask at the noticeboard before adding them (unless they are blatantly unreliable). --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll ask at the noticeboard before adding them (unless they are blatantly unreliable). --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

writer has a new icon, take a look here http://www.openoffice.org/product/product.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123465421jhytwretpo98721654 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

screenshot os
once apache relases aoo 3.4 i think we should change the openoffice screenshots from apache-open-office (aoo) running in ubuntu to aoo running in windows.

my rationale is that aoo is soon to become primarily a windows app. all linux distros have abandoned it and moved to libreoffice, therfore the article should not show aoo running ubuntu because this is misleading and not the most repsentative example of the aoo interface.

what do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123465421jhytwretpo98721654 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)