From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Disambiguation
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

vandalism accusation[edit]

Hal, please explain why you call my changes vandalism. If you feel strongly about it, you should put a vandalism warning on my Talk page. If it's true, I will need to learn to behave myself. Thanks. —Fleminra 09:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You deliberatly change a wel known wikilink to Office Open XML to a non existing OpenXML (OXML) combination. That even whilst you are well aware of the correct article name as you have editted the Office Open XML article several times in the recent past. That means your edit is in bad faith as you are knowingly removing correctly working wikilinks with the correct naming and substituting them for non-working wiki links and alternative naming of an article. Such a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia constitutes Wikipedia:Vandalism hAl 10:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I didn't change a link. I rewrote the article, because the previous version (and now current version) made unreferenced claims. In my version, I quoted text from a reference that you nominated. According to that text, OXML is an acronym for Office Open XML. I have no evidence to suggest otherwise. I actually expected you to create a redirect at OXML to Office Open XML. Or are you saying now that that reference is unreliable? —Fleminra 17:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
There were no unreferenced claims. The Office Open XML article, which reference you removed, supports what was there. But regardless of that. There was a wiki link that was well known to you namely Office open XML. There was no need to remove that wiki link and insert a broken link whatever your edit was. Even in your edit you could have used the correct wiki link. It was purely intentional as you know the correct article name and link and you changed the text to represent a reference to a non correct article name and broken wiki link. Also the Office Open XML article does not contain an acronym OXML so now you ar making up things that are just not true. hAl 09:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Hal, you're wasting my time by writing incomprehensible English (your first sentence is not parsable), and not reading what I write. For starters, you would do everyone a favor if you started using Firefox — it has a built-in spell checker. Otherwise please compose your thoughts in your beloved Microsoft Word and paste them into IE. It detracts from your credibility. Please re-read my comments and the "OXML" reference that you introduced, and explain your reckless accusation of me making things up. Thanks. —Fleminra 18:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
You fail to explain why you deliberatly editted a wiki page to remove a valid wiki link to the Office Open XML article and replace it with a broken link and a changed naming. Also I do not understand what you mean by me introducing a reference to that zdnet article in the context of this disambiguity page. That reference never was on this page untill you yourself put it in. So you introduced it to this page, not me. hAl 21:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Did I say that you introduced the link to this article? You introduced it to Wikipedia (AFAIK) and to me — as an example of text that uses the phrase "open office" in the generic sense. What better place to quote that text than Wikipedia's article called "open office"? So that's what I did. That article says "OXML" is an acronym for Office Open XML. You haven't convinced me that it's not. Is your zdnet article only selectively reliable as a reference? Why don't you just go and create the OXML redirect? Obviously you have a reference for it. Besides all of this, since when is so-called "minor vandalism" justification for wholesale reversion of an entire edit? That is, if the OXML/OOXML link (which you call vandalism or something I "made up"; and I call a fully referenced quotation) was your only problem with my edit, why did you revert the whole thing? Spell checker, Hal — my eyes are bleeding. —Fleminra 01:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Please do not make personal attacks, Fleminra. Thank you. —Joshua Issac (talk) 20:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

LibreOffice is not referred to as OpenOffice[edit]

I've never seen LibreOffice referred to as OpenOffice. Does anyone have a reliable source that suggests this? If not then LibreOffice should not be suggested as a disambiguation term. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation. (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


We could utilize Template:Clade to illustrate the entire history: from StarOffice to OpenOffice to to Apache OpenOffice and LibreOffice. E.g.
Apache Software Foundation

Apache OpenOffice

The Document Foundation


ScotXW (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Template:StarOffice derivates[edit]

StarOffice StarOffice Oracle Open Office LibreOffice Apache OpenOfficeStarOffice timeline.svg
About this image

Created with Wikipedia imagemap, this means you can click on it the items and will be forwarded to the according article. I hope this lifts the whole confusion. ScotXW (talk) 23:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Not appropriate for the disambiguation page, but certainly for and StarOffice. Let's continue at ... - David Gerard (talk) 17:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 23:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

OpenOfficeOpenOffice (disambiguation) – Previously, this page was at OpenOffice (disambiguation) and OpenOffice redirected to was donated by Oracle to the Apache Foundation in 2011 (including trademarks to the name "OpenOffice"). There's a fuss over whether the Oracle version and OpenOffice since Apache took it over are distinct software packages, let's leave that aside.

The Apache hosted software is the primary topic now. Apache are the ones releasing the software known as OpenOffice. They maintain the OpenOffice website (, which was previously maintained by Oracle. Until recently, they supported the <=3.3 version (the last production release from Oracle). They recently stopped supporting it as a "legacy" version of the software. No-one notable (if anyone) continues support for the pre-Apache version of the software.

So, I propose we move this page to OpenOffice (disambiguation) and redirect OpenOffice to Apache OpenOffice as the primary topic.

--Tóraí (talk) 09:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Tóraí (talk) 09:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose There is no proof that any project is the primary topic, with respect to usage, and certainly not with respect to long-term significance. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, this page currently says that is discontinued. And Apache agrees that that version (v.3.3) is no longer supported. Meanwhile version 4.0 has been released. We call that Apache OpenOffice. So, why would there be any contention in the issue?
But let's look at Ghits. If I Google "openoffice", I get:
  1. Apache OpenOffice - The Free and Open Productivity Suite
  2. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  3. Apache OpenOffice
  4. Apache OpenOffice - CNET
  5. Download Apache OpenOffice 4.0.1 -
  6. LibreOffice 4.2 is here!
  7. OpenOffice: The Leading Open-source Office Software Suite
So excluding, Wikipedia's article, that's one for (a distribution of v.3.2), one for Libre Office (saying it is a fork of and the remainder are for Apache OpenOffice.
If I search CNET for "openoffice", it's Apache OpenOffice that I'm directed to (naturally since it's the latest version!). In fact, if I wanted to download the last available release of, where would I go? ? Oh, look, it's Apache OpenOffice! :-) --Tóraí (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose For the reasons indicated by Tóraí and all the other reasons discussed to death in multiple instances.. Note the proposal says : "No-one notable (if anyone) continues support ofr the pre-Appache version of the software". in fact no-one _ever_ did since Oracle folded tent, and there is no post-Oracle version of _that_ software. Shmget (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
    @Shmget:, Apache supported 3.3 after transfer of the project from Oracle to Apache. See the Internet Archive snapshot from January 2012, for example. The last security patch for 3.3 was released by Apache (not Oracle) in March 2012 (see ref). Apache announced the end of life of <=3.3 in Summer 2013. Versions <=3.3 can still be downloaded from the website (here). --Tóraí (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
@Shmget:, I'm confused by your statement. Tóraí proposed the move and the reasons given appear to support the move. Did really you mean to oppose? olderwiser 17:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
my mistake, I mis-attributed the comment.. I means 'indicated by Walter Görlitz'. Shmget (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as a disservice to readers who come here looking for "OpenOffice", based on what they choose when they get here.
Tóraí brings up Google hits, but those don't tell us what the readers want. For that, we should look at the statistics on, which (barring a few days in early January when the data feed broke) are literally every page hit.
When readers go to OpenOffice, they are presented with links and descriptive text saying precisely what is at that link. From this they make their informed decision: scores around 1800-2400 hits/day, 53866 recorded hits in January up to yesterday.
Apache OpenOffice scores around 600-800 hits/day, 17124 recorded hits in January up to yesterday.
Thus, the votes of the readers - who can be presumed, I think, to know which article they want - are over 75:25 for
Obviously, only a small number of the article hits come from this page - about 300/day. But, unless we can produce more solid metrics, this is the proxy we have. It would appear to indicate that, rather than Apache OpenOffice per the proposer, the page should be redirected to However, I would move that it stay a disambiguation page.
We could in fact get more solid metrics, by making the links on this page newly-created redirects to the respective articles - this happening accidentally, and the numbers from it, was a conclusive and overwhelming argument in the recent discussion of which article should live at Architecture in Helsinki. But this is not a conventional use of redirects, and I'd be reluctant to put it into place without consensus to do so. It would, however, establish conclusively what Wikipedia readership expectations actually are, down to the individual page load.
Given the overwhelmingly greater popularity of the article over the Apache OpenOffice article - which strongly indicates, for Wikipedia readers - which is who we're here for, after all - to make OpenOffice simply a redirect to the latter would functionally constitute advocacy of a minor POV because we thought we knew better than the readers what was good for them. I don't think we're in that business.
I note in passing that, although acting in all good faith, the proposer does not seem to understand what the references he quotes in the parallel discussion on actually mean, as noted by Walter Görlitz - David Gerard (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Sadly the hit count of articles is skewed by the (POV?) forking of the OpenOffice article between between and the newly-created Apache OpenOffice article. It means there's a far greater number of internal legacy backlinks to both internal to Wikipedia (2084 vs. 265) and from external websites. The relatively small number of hits to this page is telling of that also. Hence why we have to look to external statistics like Ghits.
Regarding your last paragraph, David, let's also have a nice discussion without posting personal attacks, please? --Tóraí (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Then we should perhaps do the links-from-here experiment I proposed. What are your thoughts on this?
Walter's phrasing is, I concur, infelicitous; however, you did in fact fail to understand the reference you were using, and this is relevant to your expression of strong opinions on the subject - David Gerard (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
It's a very good idea. If unorthodox. If there's consensus for it then I think it's a good approach. This page isn't very NPOV right now, though (e.g. not alphabetically sorted). So maybe we'd have a little tweaking to do - but nothing we can't agree on.
With regards to Walter's comments, if you wish to contribute to that discussion, the thread is still open. --Tóraí (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I've sorted the entries in alpha order - David Gerard (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The current setup is confusing and messy and it would be nice to have the actively-developed version of the software at OpenOffice, however the traffic is still well-spread throughout the various pages listed on the DAB, as mentioned above, and depending on how long Apache will support the software for, could well have longer-term significance given its tenure. Despite opposing this RM I appreciate the nominator's attempt to improve this situation. benmoore 23:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
    While Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and I don't have RSes for any of this, I had noticed that IBM contributions to AOO had dropped off severely, am told that most of the IBM Beijing team have been taken off AOO and that AOO is a hot prospect for the Attic within the next two years. (You should of course take all this with a grain of salt - no RSes!) But my point is that at present, redirecting this article to one of the minor popularity options is probably not supportable - David Gerard (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
    Let's put the crystal balls away. But on this point: ... [Apache OpenOffice is] one of the minor popularity options... At 90,177,102 downloads since 2012, there has been no drop off in popularity for OpenOffice since Apache took it over. And all of the alternatives (IBM OpenOffice, Oracle OpenOffice, etc.) are no longer produced. --Tóraí (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Still fails the historical portion of the guideline. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Partial Support. Move and redirect OpenOffice to OpenOffice (disambiguation), while keeping the AOO page at its original name. (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
No. See WP:MALPLACED. --BDD (talk) 23:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

See also Office Open XML[edit]

At the moment, the article says "OpenOffice may refer to: [...] Office Open XML". That seems as unlikely as "OpenOffice may refer to: [...] Libre Office". One thing that Office Open XML has nothing to do with is the slew of office suites that have shared the name OpenOffice. I'll move it to the 'See also' section. --Nigelj (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

You are representing that correctly. You made two changes.
  1. You moved "Office Open XML, a file format from Microsoft" to the see also section.
  2. You linked the creator articles.
So the format may be confused with the term "OpenOffice" and it makes perfect sense to include it in the main portion of the DAB not the see also section. Inclusion of items like this is discussed at Wikipedia:Disambiguation.
Linking of items other than the item being disambiguated is not advised at MOS:DABENTRY. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Although Microsoft never said so, many commentators at the time noted that the name "Office Open XML" seemed almost hand-picked for confusion with OpenOffice. So listing it here may be useful - David Gerard (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
It strike me as being a bit far fetched too. It's looks like a partial title match. It is ambiguous with OpenOffice XML but not with "OpenOffice". --Tóraí (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Resectioning fixes that Yes check.svg Done Widefox; talk 23:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


The fundamental problem is that this dab is arguably a WP:BROADCONCEPT (plus the floor plan), somewhat similar to Nokia Lumia per WP:BROADCONCEPT. The scope being open source/open format office suits. Then we'd have more ability to detail relationships. On the other hand, this strange dab may be quicker. Widefox; talk 00:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Not really. Most of the "computing" section is about things either directly related to, named for the purpose of confusion with it (OOXML) or things whose names have been confused with it - disambiguation - David Gerard (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Exactly, there may be too much emphasis on the software forking for inclusion "are instances or examples of that concept or type", rather than article title ambiguity. Directly related to doesn't make a dab (and OOXML may be a WP:PTM). Articles sharing the same name do. These aren't known as "OpenOffice":
  • LibreOffice
  • NeoOffice
  • OpenDocument
  • XML
  • Office Open XML
We should at least indent (in each of the two sections) so the relationship ties them to the name OOo (similar to Chrome Chrome/OS, Chromium/OS) as they don't warrant being standalone separate unindented items known as "OpenOffice", but rather forks and derivatives confused for that reason rather than name per se
but are: all items may be examples of the primary meaning of "open office" software and documents. This would also allow inclusion of StarOffice. Further opinions sought. I've marked as cleanup reqd for now.
(For comparison, Office (disambiguation) is easier). Widefox; talk 04:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
It's possible that Procrustean beds aren't restful, and that not everything should be Taylorised if you give a hoot about the end reader - David Gerard (talk) 08:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
It's our choice to use MOSDAB dabs (Procrustean beds if you like), I'm not sure who's acting Procrustes though... Back to topic, care to reason why MOSDAB is an arbitrary standard not useful here worthy of IAR, versus say an open office broadconcept (or horribly a List of StarOffice derivatives) There's disambiguation to be done, but short of guiding readers to the brightest light(s) now that the Star (and Open Office) have gone out per HOWTO / RECENT. Widefox; talk 02:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Bogota, Colombia[edit]

Anon from Bogota, Colombia has made three changes to the article recently all focused on what I would call "re-branding" information. this and this are the two most detailed examples. It seems that editor is primarily concerned with detailing licensing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Revert to clean up[edit]

ClareTheSharer, the relevant consensus for the content and appearance of a disambiguation page is at Wikipedia:Disambiguation and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages. In particular, see the sections dealing with on what not to include.

Perhaps you can explain why you are re-adding articles titles that do not match the term being disambiguated ("OpenOffice")? Such as "OpenDocument", or "NeoOffice" or "OpenDoc"? --Tóraí (talk) 13:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm just reflecting earlier discussion on this talk page (and those of the various topics that are disambiguated). As an example, a user who has not been keeping up with the projects and is looking for "OpenOffice" might well actually want to find "LibreOffice" since they form an unbroken tradition (more so than AOO as far as I can tell). Omitting a pointer to "LibreOffice" from this DAB is thus a political choice for anyone who has read the whole discussions. I think the same applies to the other cases, and whatever the rules say this case needs considering on its merits.
I am definitely no expert, but your certainty of interpretation does not seem to match the earlier discussions and your bold, undiscussed actions don't seem to respect their good faith. Hence, I was bold back! Reading all the articles on this topic has taught me there are no easy answers and that each choice conflicts with and/or expresses a strongly-held POV.
I realise you are highly experienced at WP and need no lectures, but I suggest you make a gentle case for each incremental change you want to make rather than a sweeping mass deletion of a balanced consensus on this DAB that has taken a long time to evolve in a politically charged space. As I have been learning as I have studied the history of Open Office, large unexplained commits are rarely acceptable :-) ClareTheSharer (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
The consensus is not the way that Tóraí has been wanting it to be listed. I'm not sure why you're arguing so hard against WP:CONSENSUS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Many of the topics were dealt with above in the Requested move discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
@ClareTheSharer: Those are reasonable concerns. However, the place to deal with them is in the relevant article. Not every page needs to be a battle ground.
This page was marked for clean up and the relevant consensus is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages. A local consensus does not override wider community guidelines. --Tóraí (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
LibreOffice, etc. could reasonable be added to the See also section but as noted by the IP above, "LibreOffice should not be suggested as a disambiguation term." Same with the other non-ambiguous terms. --Tóraí (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
@Tóraí: I think we need to ask who is likely to be visiting this disambiguation page. For some, it will be a matter of a typographical similarity and for some it will be seeking a different topic. But I believe for most it will be because, having encountered historically, they are researching the topic of either the word processors they used to know as or possibly the file formats they pioneered. Those people need to have a clear navigation path to the full family of articles which someone seeking "" would now seek. For me, that means clear and co-located pointers to Apache OpenOffice and to LibreOffice (I'm not of the opinion NeoOffice matters much but I'm sure others will differ). As such the consensus page which has long been located here seems to me to be a great fit for the most likely use cases, and while I recognise your strength of feeling I don't believe the edits you are proposing make things better for many people. (By the way, life is complicated and I may not respond instantly to messages on WP at present, but I'm not ignoring you; sorry if you feel I am) ClareTheSharer (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
No problem about not responding quickly to WP messages. Take your time.
As regards the purpose of dab pages, their purpose is to disambiguate similarly titled subjects, not related topics. The consensus for their purpose, content and appearance of dab pages is described at Wikipedia:Disambiguation and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages. For example:

Disambiguation pages ("dab pages") are designed to help a reader find Wikipedia articles on different topics that could be referenced by the same search term ... Do not include entries for topics that are not ambiguous (according to the linked article) with the title.

As stated by numerous posters to this page, "LibreOffice" (and "NeoOffice") are not called "OpenOffice". There is nothing in the consensus on disambiguation pages that I can see that would support them being included as disambiguation terms here.
Even looking up along this discussion page, there doesn't even appear to be even a local consensus to include them - just one poster after another saying these entries should be removed because they are not ambiguous as search terms with the title of this page.
Why are you standing in the way? --Tóraí (talk) 19:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)