Talk:LibreOffice Writer

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as High-importance).

Contested deletion

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

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! ~Euphoria42 20:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Version history

im thinking of adding a version table like here Microsoft_Word#Versions 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

File:Libreoffice writer .png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Libreoffice writer .png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Libreoffice writer .png)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to improve features listing

The features should be divided more or less as follows (here in no particular order) —

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.

-Mardus (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]