Talk:Microsoft Word

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" [1]. I shall rename the article.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 09:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Quality of Sources

Hey, somebody has added a couple of sources, great. Too bad that at least one of them Microsoft Word for Mac History at lowendmac.com actually gives this article as its source. Lars T. (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

"Paid" commercial software

I removed the word paid from the opening sentence because I believe it is redundant to commercial. My edit was reverted with the summary: Commercial is an attribute about the use of the software while paid is in regard to price. The two are different. Both of them seem the same to me. Commercial software, or payware, is software produced for sale, according to Dictionary.com.[2] I don't see how this is different to paid software. I invite the editor to discuss the issue. --Joshua Issac (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Redundant and bad writing style. —Ruud 15:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a Microsoft Office Word Starter Edition (part of Office 2010) that isn't paid, but, is still commercial. There are ads on it. This is like saying Google is not a commercial company.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Microsoft Office Starter 2010 comes pre-loaded on computers. The cost to the manufacturer of pre-loading is US$5 per licence ($2 with the discounted licensing programme).[3] Full versions of Office and other commercial software, such as Microsoft Works, may also be pre-loaded on computers this way. Although the customer may not have to pay for these software separately, it does not mean that that they are freeware, because the manufacturer has to pay for them. --Joshua Issac (talk) 11:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Did not know. Agree with you and Ruud now.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The "Features and Flaws" section and the Superscript+Subscript flaw

I believe the article looks kind of... "weirdish" with the subheading Features and Flaws.

I wouldn't object if someone tried this:

1. Change the heading to Features 2. Removed the flaw, since I believe this isn't really noteworthy... and it's not much of a flaw, it's more of a basic limitation of the fact that Superscript and Subscript do not make 2 rows of text within a line, but simply takes the characters and makes them smaller...

I'm kind of a noob, anyone wanna add to this?

--The Tangmeister (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a question (re. this definitely "wierdish" section): What does the following actually mean: A Macro is a rule of pattern that specifies how a certain input sequence(often a sequence of characters) should be mapped to an output sequence according to defined process. ...??? Maelli (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

list of bugs ok for encylopedia ?

is it ok to have a list of bugs/flaws, or is that to how to do it for wiki ? for instance, the update TOC with <cntrl A> F9 bug - you have to do this twice to get it to work. another catagory would be features that have vanished; I don't know of any in word (unless you want to include the can't group figures and text box) but in excel, horizontal error bars are gone in 2007, so that is def a feature that was present in an earlier version.

FYI: "OSX" is just a way of abbreviating "OS 10"...

Macintosh OS 10 (or OS X) is in fact a continuation of Macintosh OS. The "X" is the Roman Numeral for "10," with no other special meaning. So, Macintosh OS 10 is simply the 10th and current version of Macintosh OS, despite the Article implying otherwise. (I'm a Mac user and could probably point out my owner's manuals and MacWorld issues as sources, eventually. Although Linex/Unix-based, it is numbered as just another Macintosh version.) So, rather than "last version compatible with Mac OS," it might behoove us to say "last version compatible with Mac OS 9 or earlier." The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

WordStar connection

A few years ago I stumbled across some information on the Web, though I don't remember where, that claimed a programmer who was formerly prominent with the development of WordStar at MicroPro International ended up developing Word at Microsoft, and the two programs, therefore, had a shared heritage when they both ran on MS-DOS, even though their look and feel and file formats were quite different. If this can be verified, it would be an interesting addition to the History section of the article. — Quicksilver^{T @} 19:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Editing MediaWiki in Word?

MIcrosoft recently came out with an add on for Word that lets it edit MediaWiki files. Should this be included in here somewhere? Andacar 03:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andacar (talk • contribs)

Updating 2010 icon to 2013 icon

File:Microsoft-Word-2013-Icon.svg

I hope someone can update the 2010 icon with the new 2013 version when the time is right.
The new icon is at: File:Microsoft-Word-2013-Icon.svg
Zywxn |  06:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)