Talk:Outlook.com

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Internet (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Internet culture (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Websites / Computing  (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Microsoft (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

About name[edit]

Why don't just name Outlook(like Hotmail)? And add a disambiguation. Asiaworldcity (talk) 05:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Because Microsoft is referring to it as Outlook.com.heat_fan1 (talk) 14:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Asiaworldcity
We already do have three "Outlook"s: See Microsoft Outlook, Outlook Express and Outlook Web App. This will make them four.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Outlook is also a common term, and it is already a disambig page. --Damaster98 (talk) 03:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

'Unique' features?[edit]

Would anyone object to the word 'unique' being removed from the sentence: "In comparison to other webmail services, Outlook.com offers the following unique features:"? Many of these features are not unique to Outlook.com, having been available in GMail for years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talkingpie (talkcontribs) 20:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Besides aliases and categories, most of the listed items do have an unique element to it in Outlook.com? --Damaster98 (talk) 03:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Damaster98
Here is a detailed report:
  1. Active view: Not unique -- Yahoo! Mail has it
  2. Office Web Apps integration: Unique
  3. Conversation threading: Not unique -- Both Gmail and Yahoo! Mail feature it
  4. Sweep: Unique but irrelevant -- Gmail and Yahoo! Mail have their own philosophy of how to treat mail.
  5. Quick views and one-click filters: Not unique -- Both Gmail and Yahoo! Mail offer it
  6. Aliases: No info
  7. Categories: Not unique -- Both Gmail and Yahoo! Mail have it (as "tags" and "labels")
  8. Instant actions: Not unique -- Both Gmail and Yahoo! Mail have it, although not exactly the same commands
  9. Skype integration: Unique
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal[edit]

NO ACTION:

No consensus to merge at this time. Perhaps this issue should be discussed later.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi.

Hotmail have so far changed both name and appearance several times. Outlook.com is just another new name and appearance. Meanwhile, we have a huge chunk of both articles that are essentially the same. Why don't we merge both? The result wouldn't see much difference in size.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree As stated in the article: Outlook.com will eventually replace Hotmail. I don't see a reason to keep two separate articles, Outlook is simply an upgrade to the existing Hotmail. For now, I think this should be redirected to Hotmail#Outlook.comJohn Biancato 21:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Disagree There are lots of (web-based) interfaces that are preceeded by different names, and they should not be merged. Although not entirely the same, Microsoft Works is really something else than Office Starter 2010, but it is planned as its successor. Have you ever noted that almost every version of Internet Explorer has its own article (like Internet Explorer 5)?? Microsoft FrontPage has been replaced by Microsoft Expression Web and Sharepoint Designer back in 2006! And that's only Microsoft. I should really keep things separated here. You all might be interested in the Category:Discontinued Microsoft software (how do you link to a category page??). Dr. F.C. Turner - [USERPAGE|USERTALK] - 14:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi.
To link to a category page or file page, insert a colon sign (":") before the namespace name. Like this: [[:Category:Discontinued Microsoft software]].
As for your opinion, you are using the old Other stuff exists argument, which is null and void in Wikipedia. Perhaps other stuff are both notable and have little to no overlapping amount of contents (like Internet Explorer versions). Or perhaps, they need to be merged, only no one has proposed yet. Our current concern here is that in comparison, 90% of contents in Outlook.com and Hotmail are duplicate.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Just in response to "Perhaps other stuff are notable (like Internet Explorer versions)" - I would say Outlook.com and Hotmail are more notable than anything else. You also forgot one thing about whether an article should exist on its own or not - whether they are notable on their own merits. Given Hotmail's history, I'd say Hotmail is notable enough to have its own article. The issue I see here is not around whether the two articles should be separate or not, but whether Outlook.com should be further improved rather than leaving it as a copy-edit of Hotmail. This will solve the issue where "90% of contents in Outlook.com and Hotmail are duplicate". --Damaster98 (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Damaster 98. How are you?
You make a good argument that if they are improved, the duplicate content issue will be resolved. But can they be improved to that point in the near future, i.e. two months? If not, merging them, even if temporarily, improves the coverage of both subjects. After all, improving involves a lot of writing, regardless of whether they are merged or not. Unmerging would be done by three clicks.
By the way, I disambiguated part of my last message, since you have misunderstood it.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Comment While Hotmail's name and look have changed several times, Hotmail has also been included within those names. Microsoft seem to be marketing Outlook.com as an entirely new product, which I don't completely agree with myself. However, I think Hotmail should continue to have a separate article for it's historical record, and Outlook.com's article should remain for this new product, as it progresses. I expect the Outlook.com service as it is to evolve somewhat by the time it replaces Hotmail. Cloudbound (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Preview vs Introduce[edit]

Thanks for the edits to my original edits to the Wikipedia article, correcting "preview" to "introduce". However, by Microsoft's own admission on the Outlook blog recently, Outlook.com left preview and officially launched in 2013. --Tokyocolumbia (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. What do you mean? You used preview as a verb and Microsoft is using it as a noun. Vendors "introduces" or "releases" the preview; consumer "previews" or "tries" the preview. It's a matter of simple English. Am I missing something? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge proposal (2nd)[edit]

MERGE:

Merging has received predominant support based on similarity of contents and context.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think that these articles should be merged. It is in reality the same service, only with different name (the address is even the same). Also, the change happened gradually — Contacts, for example were already in the new outlook.com format several months before. The article content is mostly duplicate. 89.79.10.115 (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Support merge. Hotmail has received many upgrades over the years and had many names, e.g. Windows Live Mail. Outlook.com is just another upgrade with another name. Besides, these two article largely overlap. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Now that the migration is complete, whilst Microsoft markets Outlook.com as a brand new service, it's basically the same thing with some new features (like Message History, Skype calls...etc.), so a merge now makes sense. However during the merge please ensure that all information on both articles are retained (unless they're duplicated due to copy-edit at the beginning). --Damaster98 (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Oppose - I think it is a new product, it is quite a bit different from hotmail, but even as an upgrade it should be a separate article. As comparison Internet Explorer 8, Internet Explorer 9, Internet Explorer 10 have their own articles. Each version of Internet Explorer is an upgrade, probably with even less differences between them than hotmail and outlook.com, but they get their own articles. The same can be said with each version of Windows. Or even sequels to movies. There is no reason in the world the articles should be merged. Me5000 (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi. "Other stuff exists" is seldom a valid argument. In the meantime, if you feel those articles on Internet Explorer can safely be merged, well, go ahead and propose. However, it does not matter how different those products are; what matter is the size of what we write about this difference. Only once the size became significant, we can have a separate article. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Alright. The article has a lot of duplicate information and is overall a poorly written article, but that shouldn't be a reason to merge the articles. Instead the article should be improved(it's been awhile since I've been on wikipedia, I think there might even be an improve tag?). It appears someone basically just copy and pasted from the hotmail article, the whole thing should be re-written. There should be a review/reception section. Maybe an interface section. Me5000 (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Hello again, Me5000. Putting up the "improve the poorly written article" makes sense when there is an effort to keep the articles impoverished and underdeveloped. Take the size issue like this: Pretend there is a genie that would upgrade both articles to utopian state with a flick of his magic wand. Would the result be significantly different? i.e., so different that warrant separate articles? IMHO, it wouldn't. The articles would still largely overlap because the genre, nature, developer, philosophy of development, method of development and feature set of these allegedly different web apps are the same. Description of user interface and critical commentary would differ but these materials do no survive a pruning because they are intricate details.
Please don't take me wrong: You are more than welcome to prove us all wrong by developing two significantly different articles. (Since the history of both articles are retained, you will have all the material you need to do so, if it is indeed feasible.) I assure you, I will be the first to overturn my position. Best regards, 17:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I understand. It will be a better article simply by merging and will reduce redundancies that would be there even with improvement. I am changing to support. Me5000 (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - When outlook launched it was very similar to hotmail, but it has and is evolved as outlook and ultimately I think the articles would be better together as one. And a lot of the hotmail article information could now be condensed. And have to be careful about not ending up with 2 very similar articles. Mark999 (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I disagree. The history of Hotmail is important. It was developed outside of Outlook, was a seminal company during the tech boom, was one of the first viral marketing success stories, etc etc etc. All of this would be lost or buried to potential readers of the Hotmail page. Yoddler (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi. What you are opposing is a delete, not merge. We are discussing merge here. Nothing is lost in a merge. Oh, and by the way, you don't have to shout. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support with reservations The current article is primarily about the service as it stands, and that service is now outlook.com - it's just a rename. However, normal practice on a merge is to create a redirect (ie, from Hotmail to Outlook.com and we shouldn't do that. Instead, the current section Hotmail#History should be promoted to be the Hotmail article; we have several historical articles on .com era services that are no more, and this should be one of them. Richard Gadsden (talk) 08:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC) 08:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose What we know if Outlook.com will the merger site of many apllications, not only Hotmail ??? And in this case, why didn't you merge WLM with Skype???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anas1712 (talkcontribs) 15:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


So, is anyone going to actually merge Hotmail and Outlook.com?[edit]

The decision has been decided merge for over a month now, with the tag still lingering on the main page as though the discussion is still open. It seems as though no one is willing to put in the time or effort to actually do the merge, which I find a bit humorous considering one of the arguments for doing the merge is that the article would need improvements not to be merged, but someone would have to put in time and effort for that and no one is willing to. Me5000 (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

  YesY Merger complete Ï¿½ (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The 2 articles shouldn't be merged, Hotmail and Outlook.com are similar to RocketMail and Yahoo! Mail, they both have 2 seperate articles, Outlook.com doesn't exist long enough to promote it as being a standalone article with its own history(, YET), but it will have its own features unique to it and tighter integration with Microsoft SkyDrive, Skype and Windows, personally I oppose any merger, the discussion has been pre-maturelly closed and not enough arguments have been made to merge them. --86.81.201.94 (talk) 13:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Reddit AMA as source for IMAP announcement[edit]

Since the recent edits in the IMAP section are starting to get into edit war territory, I figured we should try and settle this on the talk page.

As far as I can see, User:Codename Lisa's argument is that the Reddit comment ([1]) fails WP:RS due to being a self-published source, whereas User:CallawayRox seems to argue that so is the other source (announcement on Outlook Blog, [2]). Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I tend to agree with User:Codename Lisa here, Reddit does seem to fall under WP:SPS, unless there's consensus somewhere that Wikipedia recognises it as a reliable source. The official blog post, however, seems to fall under WP:ABOUTSELF - a Microsoft-published blog posting announcements relating to Microsoft's products - and thus should be OK to use as a source for a non-exceptional claim like IMAP support. Based on this, and because one source should be sufficient, I would support the omission of the Reddit comment as a source.

Your thoughts? Indrek (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi.
I am very sorry for the second revert. It was a mistake. I should have self-reverted but it totally went out of my mind that I had reverted the same thing before. Very sorry. Anyway, when I saw CallawayRox's third revert I decided that my mistake has eliminated a chance of having a collegial talk with CallawayRox. So, in a way, I am glad you started this discussion thread. Still, I am very sorry for the inconvenience that I made.
At this time I have nothing to add. You were thorough.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
The reddit AMA is the same WP:SPS WP:ABOUTSELF as the official blog. IAmA is verified by the mods and Steve Kafka wrote the comment and the blog post. The quotes show that reddit was first. Lots of sources [3][4][5][6][7][8][9] noted the announcement on reddit. CallawayRox (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Reddit is not owned or published by Microsoft, so I don't think WP:ABOUTSELF applies. The question remains - is Reddit considered a reliable source on Wikipedia? I tried searching through the archives at WP:RSN but didn't find anything.
Also, given that we already have a perfectly valid source (the official blog post) that no one is disputing, why do we even need the Reddit comment? Isn't one source enough?
Indrek (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
This policy also applies to pages on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook. Who controls the account matters. OutlookOnReddit is the Outlook.com team. CallawayRox (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi.
The original concerns that led me to contest the original edit are now addressed. One reason was undue coverage. The section was about IMAP and the article was about Outlook.com, but the bulk of contents with which I had trouble were about IAmA. Yes, I agree that if there was a paragraph about IMAP support, it would not have mattered. The second was a different aspect of RS than one that is currently being discussed; it was the fact that you can't know if it is first announced there, only announced there or even announced there, per se. In fact, the whole edit seemed such a glaring error that, as I said in my edit summary, I thought it was a joke. (Have you ever seen those joke articles that go sprawling out of context? E.g., they are titled "Hitler's suicide" and they continue "On DD MMM YYYY, Hitler shot himself with Weapon X. X is produced by Y. Y is first founded by Z. Z was an avid fan of [...]".)
But did I mentioned that these concerns are addressed now?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I still have my doubts about Reddit as a reliable source. Yes, I know the AMA accounts are verified (everyone knows that), but is that process considered thorough enough for Wikipedia's standards? More importantly, is that something we can (or should) decide here and set a precedent for?
I also maintain that one source is sufficient for this claim, but if the majority view is that IMAP support being mentioned on Reddit first is somehow significant, why don't we use any of the number of secondary sources posted above (such as this one)? Indrek (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
If there are no objections, I'm going to replace the Reddit link with one of the secondary sources (probably the ZDNet one I linked to) in a couple of days. Indrek (talk) 13:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Whats precident have to do with it? The reddit post was first, end of story. CallawayRox (talk) 19:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Precedent in the sense that if this is the first time this issue has come up (Reddit as WP:RS), I think we should discuss it a bit more thoroughly than "The reddit post was first, end of story". Indrek (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Its not like every one is going to start citing reddit. CallawayRox (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't see how that's relevant. If it's a reliable source, then sooner or later someone will use it. And if no one does, then that's a good reason for us to evaluate it all the more critically. Indrek (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I have no objections. Secondary sources are better than primaries. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I enquired about Reddit on WP:RSN and was advised that IAmA's could be treated like a regular interview. I suppose I hadn't considered that angle. While I still believe that multiple sources are unnecessary for the content in question, this isn't big enough an issue so I'll leave it as it is now.
Regards, Indrek (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Microsoft Office Online[edit]

The moniker bellow still refers to Outlook.com as Windows Live, in reality Microsoft considers several of (THE FORMER-)Windows Live applications as parts of Microsoft Office Online (https://office.com/start/default.aspx)rather than a part of Windows Live, the brand has been discontinued, thus shouldn't be used even wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Online) confirms this. I'm not suggesting to remove the present Windows Live Category, but I am suggesting to add the Microsoft Office (or maybe a separate online category), and not to go off-topic from this, but as the service was renamed, Hotmail shouldn't be in the discontinued section as renaming a service and discontinuing it are 2 completely different things, i.e. Microsoft SkyDrive -> Microsoft OneDrive. --86.81.201.94 (talk) 10:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Transition to Outlook.com[edit]

While users can keep the hotmail.* domain for their account, they are given no choice and not even a prompt anymore before being force-migrated to the new Outlook.com interface and funcionality. There is an ongoing issue with severe data loss from the user's accounts, often coinciding with the migration, sometimes thereafter. sources: www.neowin.net/news/many-hotmail-users-still-dealing-with-missing-emails-when-switching-to-outlookcom and :http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook_com/forum/oemail-orestoremail/ this latter one raises the question of how-to-link-wisely-as-not-to-make-the-source-disappear. 83.51.147.159 (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)