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 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  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)
Any response on this? Or any reason why we should continue to list items that aren't known as OpenOffice (as Widefox put it)? --Tóraí (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
No response required. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
If you are opposed to a clean up then, yes, an explanation is needed. The majority of commenter on this page (Nigelj,, Widefox and myself) recognise the need for clean up. A minority (youself, David Gerard and ClareTheSharer) are somehow opposed. Consensus is at WP:DAB and WP:MOSDAB.
So, as Widefox puts it, care to reason why MOSDAB is not useful here? --Tóraí (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Count me in to pro-cleanup camp but once again Walter and David won't care because they act as if they owned OpenOffice-related topics no matter what the majority thinks. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Cleaning the article up is not something I am opposed to. Introducing delusional information that you and Tóraí lean toward is not an option though. As for the attempted insults that we show ownership, it doesn't fly. We simply support the references. Suck on that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
What "delusional information" in particular so that we can avoid introducing it here? --Tóraí (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Pretty much everything you've written is skewed to some degree and everyone who has commented here and at the has stated that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
But with regards to cleaning up this dab page, per myself, KAMiKAZOW, Widefox and others, what is your specific objection? Or do you have any? --Tóraí (talk) 10:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with the DAB. It lists all of the subjects related to the topic. However, if you want to create a page as a sub-page of the talk page where you can show what you want, I have no problems with seeing a concrete example. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with the DAB. It lists all of the subjects related to the topic. You see, that there is the problem. See the consensus on what should appear on a dab page at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages. In particular:

"Do not include entries for topics that are not ambiguous (according to the linked article) with the title. Use list articles for lists of related topics if needed."

LibreOffice is not ambiguous with the title of this disambiguation page, even if it is ambiguous or related to some topics that are.
See the consensus for the list of things that appear on a particular dab page at WP:DPAGE. They are for disambiguating terms that differ in capitalization, grammatical forms, variant spellings and so on.
This has nothing to do with any perspective on the article A example post-clean up revision is here. --Tóraí (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't see and I am actually afraid that based on your last two efforts it will be unacceptable. Please make a sub-page and show your intended work. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
A sub-page isn't required. A trivial clean up to a small dab page ought not to be a big deal. Why don't you just say what do you find unacceptable about the version linked above? --Tóraí (talk) 20:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
You're right it isn't required, it's suggested because the three times you've made what you think are improvements to this DAB, others come along and tell you it's not an improvement. I'm sorry you have a hard time reading between the lines. My suggestion is for your benefit, not mine. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
FYI see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive852.
If there's no guidelines'-based reason why the dab shouldn't be cleaned up as normal, I'm going to restore the clean-up state, without the non-ambiguous terms. --Tóraí (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I disagree, and I see no guideline based reason why the entires should be removed. Ambiguity is not the only reason to list a page, as MOS:DAB says in its lede: 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, as described in the Disambiguation guideline. Given that these all split from it seems more than reasonable that a reader looking for those articles would search "OpenOffice", and listing those items here assists in finding the entries. That is the purpose of disambiguation pages on Wikipedia, and removing those entries does not serve to aid the reader nor is the removal insisted upon in any consensus-based guideline or policy that I was able to find. - Aoidh (talk) 23:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
"...that could be referenced by the same search term..." @Aoidh: As others have said, NeoOffice, LibreOffice, etc. are never called OpenOffice.
I have sympathy to the perspective of helping readers, but TBH, if we start over-crowding dab pages (not just this one) with other stuff, there'll be no end. Adding these items to the See Also section, which the DAB guidelines give wide berth to, is more than sufficient IMO.
Given that there is no consensus on this page (see the page history going back 12 months), I'm going to ask for the input of the dab notice board. --Tóraí (talk) 07:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC: How/if to include NeoOffice, LibreOffice, etc.[edit]

This was a two part Request for Comment where there is a consensus that derivatives of OpenOffice should be included on the DAB page in the "See also" section near the bottom of the page. None of the arguments against seem to be based on so much as an essay and the arguments for are based on the MOS:DAB guideline. There was a suggestion that the page could be turned into an outline which had some support, but I do not see enough discussion about that idea to say there was a consensus to make that change. It may be worth proposing and discussing in depth in a new section below however to see if a consensus develops. (non-admin closure){{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 01:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
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.

Two questions:

1. Should this dab page disambiguate (a) only articles that have titles that are ambiguous with the term OpenOffice; or (b) also articles that may be ambiguous with the topic of but are not called OpenOffice (e.g. LibreOffice, NeoOffice, etc.)?

2. If articles such as LibreOffice, NeoOffice etc. are included here, should we include them (a) in the See also section; or (b) in the main body of the dab page?

Example versions:

--Tóraí (talk) 08:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Only articles that are ambiguous with the ambiguous title. "LibreOffice", etc., are also not ambiguous with "". Being a forked project does not make something ambiguous. A list of projects and forks, etc., would be a list article, not a disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Being a forked project absolutely makes something ambiguous to the named topic, especially when LibreOffice, for example, is so overwhelmingly associated with the word OpenOffice without actually being called such that I can't see any reason why such things should be removed except for the most literal reading of "If the words in the DAB title aren't exactly found in the article title it shouldn't be listed" and the issue with that is that nothing like that is found in any guideline or policy, so there's no basis for that. MOS:DAB spells out the purpose of a DAB page: "designed to help a reader find Wikipedia articles on different topics that could be referenced by the same search term". I don't think anyone could argue that someone wouldn't search OpenOffice when looking for LibreOffice if they couldn't remember the name LibreOffice. What MOS:DAB doesn't say is "DAB pages are nothing more than lists of articles that contain the DAB page's name and nothing more", and only by trying to read it that way can such a removal be justified; it is inconsistent with the relevant MoS. - Aoidh (talk) 11:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
    Then the article LibreOffice needs to indicate that it is ambiguous with (not just a fork of) "OpenOffice" or "". If people are commonly referring to LibreOffice as "OpenOffice" or "", then it is ambiguous and should be listed. If they are not calling it by those names, then it's not ambiguous and shouldn't be listed. Disambiguation pages are not indexes of "commonly associated" things (those lists would be list articles). Calling the obvious reading the "most literal" reading just because you think it's wrong doesn't make it any less the obvious reading. But the desired outcome is simple: just update the LibreOffice article with the information about how it is referred to by the term "OpenOffice". -- JHunterJ (talk)
Read what I wrote again. Firstly, I didn't suggest people were calling LibreOffice open office, nor did I call your interpretation "the most literal", I called it a narrow reading of a misunderstanding, because nothing in any guideline or policy supports your position. On the otherhand, the MoS does support it being included for the reason I already gave. "Commonly associated" is a red herring, and trying to turn the DAB page only into things that contain the word given in the DAB title is turning it into a list article: "List of articles that contain the word OpenOffice", and that's not the purpose of a DAB page. - Aoidh (talk) 12:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think anyone could argue that someone wouldn't search OpenOffice when looking for LibreOffice if they couldn't remember the name LibreOffice. That's quite a stretch of the intended purpose of dab pages and could lead to hundreds of tangential terms being included. Possibly what you are interested in is an outline article?
    But, more to the point, this page isn't about We have an article on that and it's not this one. As the first line of this page makes clear, this page list things that, "OpenOffice or open office may refer to:..." Never does OpenOffice refer to LibreOffice. In the same way, Ubuntu never refers to Debian and Debian is not listed on the Ubuntu dab page. --Tóraí (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
The lede of MOS:DAB says otherwise. - Aoidh (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • From the lede of MOS:DAB: "...topics that could be referenced by the same search term..." We are all agreed that LibreOffice, etc. are never called OpenOffice. It's a great stretch to interpret "could be referenced by the same search term" as including cases where people may search for one term (OpenOffice) because they couldn't remember another (LibreOffice). --Tóraí (talk) 07:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
No more a stretch than to suggest that it should be removed, when no policy or guideline supports such a removal. Disambiguation pages are not articles; they are aids in searching. Hindering that aid just because an article doesn't contain the exact phrase used in the DAB page serves no useful purpose to a reader whatsoever. - Aoidh (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Adding extraneous entries to link to articles that aren't ambiguous with the title hinders the aid. If there's a useful purpose to such a list, a list article should be created. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
As others have said, this DAB page is not so large that there is any information overload, and many other DAB pages are much, much larger, so that is not an issue. I would say the reverse, if there is a useful purpose for a List of articles with OpenOffice in the title, that should be created, because that's what you're suggesting we turn this DAB page into, and that's not the purpose of DAB pages. - Aoidh (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
The other, larger dab pages have longer lists of things are actually ambiguous. Please don't make up silly suggestions and claim that that's my position (this is the red herring, not your position of "commonly associated"). I'm certainly not suggesting that we ignore WP:PTM and list things with OpenOffice in the title. The purpose of Wikipedia disambiguation pages is to disambiguate topics on Wikipedia that could have the same title -- that is, that are commonly referred to by the same name. They needn't have it somewhere in the title, but they do need to be referred to by the title, not simply be associated with it or forked from it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It's not a red herring, your suggestion that LibreOffice isn't "literally called" OpenOffice and therefore shouldn't be listed is not supported by the disambiguation guideline or the MoS on disambiguation pages, nor was I suggesting that you want to include things just because they include OpenOffice in the title, but rather that you seem to be suggesting that we exclude things simply because they don't, as opposed to what readers would be searching for when looking for various article subjects. Per MOS:DABENTRY the point of these pages are to list items that "might be referenced by the term being disambiguated. Keep in mind that the primary purpose of the disambiguation page is to help people find the specific article they want quickly and easily." Neither the guideline nor the MOS suggests in any way that article subjects listed "need to be referred to by the title" in order to be listed, that goes contrary to the guideline itself and the existing layout of many DAB pages. I'm not suggesting that I'm right and your wrong, and I don't think I'm going to convince you or vice versa, but what you're saying is your opinion; it's not how DAB pages are handled in practice and isn't reflected by any prior consensus that I could find and certainly isn't backed by either WP:DAB or MOS:DAB. - Aoidh (talk) 07:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Do not include anything for which the name of the item linked can not be shown to actually be "OpenOffice"; a disambiguation page only includes topics that happen to share a name. For example, the disambiguation page Battery lists the crime of battery, the artillery battery, and the electrical battery, but it doesn't list "Duracell" and "Eveready" even though everyone knows that each of these is a brand of battery. bd2412 T 20:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • See also. At best, this is a "see also" issue. It's entirely possible that someone might refer to LibreOffice as OpenOffice, and it's entirely possible that someone might want to end up at LibreOffice when they search for OpenOffice. But they do not need to be disambiguated from each other, as they do not have the same name. I think that this article could very well be turned into an outline, and that sounds like a pretty good idea to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I completely agree with the idea of an outline format. bd2412 T 03:40, 30 September 2014 (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.

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Derivative or continuation[edit]

Just a heads up, Oracle donated their code to Apache, not The Document Foundation. This means that Apache owns the original OpenOffice code, and can re-license future versions of it (and dual-license past versions) in any way that they wish (which they did). Similarly, Oracle's OpenOffice was a continuation of, not a fork. The Document Foundation does not own any of the OpenOffice code, and they are rebasing their code on AOO ( ) so that they can switch licenses. If they owned the OpenOffice code, they would be able to switch licenses without having to rebase their code. The following image ( ) gives a general idea of how the process went, with Apache Open Office continuing directly from the main Open Office code base (with some Symphony code merged in), and retaining ownership of all Open Office code. (talk) 05:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

This is being discussed in greater detail above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 11:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Would you care to highlight where above the consensus was that "[The ownership of the code] was also donated to LibreOffice. Both are derivatives." as you (incorrectly) stated? All I see are posts about how this should remain a disambig page (as there are multiple "OpenOffice" pages on Wikipedia), and some discussion as to whether LibreOffice should be included at all. Apache are the only ones that own the OpenOffice code, just like Oracle and Sun did before them. Changing ownership or changing licenses does not make the latest version a fork. It is still the main dev line. Now, LibreOffice is planning on splitting of into their own separate dev tree (once they finish their rebase), however LibreOffice still is a fork of OpenOffice (and specifically Apache OpenOffice). I understand that a lot of people have a vested interest in LibreOffice and distancing themselves from Oracle, however that does not change the fact that Apache is the owner, and maintainer, of the original OpenOffice dev stream. (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I may have conflated discussion at with discussion here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
It appears you did. The consensus there appears to be that Oracle donated the code for OpenOffice to Apache (which they did), and it is just you and one other user disagreeing. Apache is the owner of the OpenOffice code and they are continuing the main dev branch under the name "Apache OpenOffice". The question over there is whether the article should be merged with the Apache OpenOffice, not whether it is a fork, nor who the code was donated to. There are issues with merging it as 1. AOO is a major revision to OO, 2. a lot of the original devs left the project when it was forked by TDF, meaning that while AOO is OO, LO is considered by many to be a spiritual successor (as well as a fork), and 3. the article would be too long (so it needs to be broken up anyway). No one in these discussions (other than yourself) has claimed that "[The ownership of the code] was also donated to LibreOffice", and TDF has outright stated that they do not own the original dev stream, and that it is owned by Apache. AOO is a continuation of the original dev stream, LO is a spiritual successor (and a fork). (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I thought that people in Ontario were able to read and understand. What a lie I've been living under. There have been two RfCs there and almost every response is that Apache is not a continuation. Say hi to Torai when you see him next; perhaps when you look in the mirror. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Cute. Personal attacks and shifting the goalposts. You're a real mensch, you know that? First of all, excluding yourself and David Gerard, the consensus in the RfCs are that Apache owns the code and AOO is a continuation of the main OpenOffice dev stream. The question is how to handle the separate articles after you and David Gerard put so much effort into creating them. Secondly, would you care to answer the question that I have repeatedly asked you? Were are your sources that TDF has ownership of the code in OpenOffice (when TDF and Oracle claim that TDF doesn't)? (talk) 03:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, that wasn't a personal attack, it was irony, but since you take offence, I apologize.
However you're also wrong, and anyone who can read the discussions can see that. Another editor just supported that. Ciao. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
As I recall from my background reading, Apache does not accept copyright assignments so Oracle could not have "donated their code to Apache". From reading back through the mailing lists, it seems Oracle granted a broad copyright license to the ASF so that the repository could be cloned, then assigned an employee (Andrew Rist) to change the copyright license over to the Apache License on any part of the code repository requested by the Apache OpenOffice project. There was some controversy as portions needed only by LO and not by AOO were not relicensed. Oracle still owns all the copyrights to the code that originated from them in both AOO and LO. Once the Apache License had been applied to the portions of the source code the AOO project needed, they then went about creating a new, Apache-conformant derivative from those portions combined with other suitably licensed works. The only thing actually donated to Apache was the trademarks. As far as I can tell, LibreOffice probably contains more of the code that was built into than Apache OpenOffice does. Apologies for any mistakes in that account-of-origins! ClareTheSharer (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
In terms of assignment of copyrights, what you say is true. In practice, sources have taken more liberal interpretation of "donation of code".
For example, the Document Foundation say, "Today we welcome Oracle’s donation of code that has previously been proprietary to the Apache Software Foundation..." (source). And Oracle described the donation as a "proposal to contribute the code to The Apache Software Foundation's Incubator" (source).
Similarly, the Apache Foundation describe it as a "code donation" but don't interpret that a meaning an assignment of copyright (my underlining):

Jagielski [president of the Apache Software Foundation] tells me though that there shouldn't be any intellectual property (IP) problems. "Oracle is using our standard Software Grant for the code donation. All code copyrighted by Oracle is now relicensed under AL2.0. The ASF has never required copyright assignment." (source)

In any case, surely we are all agreed that Oracle donated to Apache. So "derivative" is hardly appropriate. And describing as "discontinued" is hardly appropriate either. At the very least, is there a source to support "discontinued"? For example, here is a source that says was simply renamed Apache OpenOffice. --Tóraí (talk) 22:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Do you have any secondary source that support this PoV? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
A short Google later:
  • Brad Chacos, PC World: "Oracle donated the code and trademark to the Apache Incubator in 2011..." (source)
  • David Meyer, ZDNet: "[Oracle] said it was 'donating' the open-source code so as to "demonstrate its commitment to the developer and open source communities." (source)
What's the source for "discontinued"? --Tóraí (talk) 09:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, the ones above and
Thanks Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "Never mind Oracle Open Office..."
  • "Oracle Open Office has been discontinued.."
  • "Oracle renamed it Oracle OpenOffice ... but discontinued its development in mid 2010."
  • "Oracle Open Office Discontinued..."
As has been pointed out to you on, Oracle OpenOffice was a different software. The names are confusing, I understand.
Regarding these:
  • "In a statement issued on Friday, Oracle announced that it intends to discontinue commercial development of the (OOo) office suite."
  • "Oracle announced its intentions to discontinue the (OOo) suite of software on Friday 15th."
Both date from the April 2011. Both say Oracle announced intentions to do X. The question is, what actually happened?
In fact, contrary to what those sources say, Oracle said it in April 2011 that it would do Y. And in July 2011 did Y. What Oracle actually said was:
  • April 15 2011: "Oracle Corporation (NASDAQ: ORCL) today is announcing its intention to move to a purely community-based open source project and to no longer offer a commercial version of Open Office. ... we believe the project would be best managed by an organization focused on serving that broad constituency on a non-commercial basis."
  • June 1 2011: "Donating to Apache gives this popular consumer software a mature, open, and well established infrastructure to continue well into the future."
Additionally, given that Oracle (and Apache) have have never announced that OOo is discontinued - and even said the very opposite (that "Donating to Apache gives this popular consumer software a mature, open, and well established infrastructure to continue well into the future.") - you will need an exceptional source to evidence this exceptional claim. --Tóraí (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I just provided multiple references that stated that Apache had discontinued it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Wally, every reference you provided was about Oracle Open Office, not OpenOffice (as Torai pointed out), and you know it. You are being purposefully obtuse and are actively harming the discussion at hand. Charwinger21 (talk) 07:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
First, my name isn't wally. That's demeaning and I don't appreciate it.
Second, he stated "that Oracle (and Apache) have have never announced that OOo is discontinued", which is false providing the references particularly "Oracle announced that it intends to discontinue commercial development of the (OOo) office suite". What Oracle says about product it's developing matters. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Walter, you offered 6 sources. 5 referred to a different software product. 1, an unreliable source, said that, "Oracle announced its intentions to discontinue the (OOo) suite of software on Friday 15th." (source) The source you quote immediate above relates to "commercial development of the" i.e. Oracle Open Office
What Oracle in fact said was, "Oracle Corporation (NASDAQ: ORCL) today is announcing its intention to move to a purely community-based open source project and to no longer offer a commercial version of Open Office. ... we believe the project would be best managed by an organization focused on serving that broad constituency on a non-commercial basis." (source)
Where have Oracle ever announced that OOo is discontinued? --Tóraí (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
You're offering a primary source which should be used with caution because, "because it is easy to misuse them", and that's what's happening here. They are not likely to say "we have discontinued the product" when they're trying to unload it on another company, yet we have two (not one you as you have stated) that claim that this is what they did.
ArsTechnica is not a blog and Ryan Paul is "is an Ars editor emeritus in the field of open source, and still contributes regularly." Then there's which, while being a blog does not immediately make it not reliable. I work on RSN and I would argue in favour of that blog since it's got a long track record of writing on the subject of technology topics. Its only downfall, the author does not have a name and signs everything as "admin". Feel free to take it RSN. So your PRIMARY source is attempting to compete with a clearly reliable source and a second, possibly reliable one, and they have every reason not to reveal all of the facts or place all their cards on the table. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Walter, the Ars Technica source relates to "commercial development of the" i.e. Oracle Open Office. That accords with the Oracle statements that they intend to "discontinue commercial development of the". But we're not talking about Oracle Open Office or commercial development of We're talking about the open source project and Oracle's intention to "move to a purely community-based open source project", which you say is discontinued. Now, is there a source to say that that project is discontinued?
I'm not going to discuss the blog post any more. It's a self-published source and plainly contradicted by the Oracle statement. --Tóraí (talk) 08:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Additionally, we also need to consider later sources, post-June 1, 2011, when Oracle's intentions became clear and was donated to the Apache Foundation. --Tóraí (talk) 08:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, Wally is a nickname for Walter, and it was meant to be friendly, not offensive. However, that is really rich coming from you, considering your long history of personal attacks both here and on other talk pages. That being said, I will not address your continued insults any further here, as that is a tone argument, and would harm the discussion at hand.
Secondly, you continue to talk about Oracle Open Office, not OpenOffice. Pretending to conflate the two does not actually turn them into the same thing. Oracle Open Office was, is, and continues to be a separate product. In their closing of Oracle Open Office, Oracle talked about how they wanted to distance OpenOffice from Oracle Open Office, and turn it into "a purely community-based project" Do you disagree that OpenOffice is a separate product from Oracle Open Office (formerly known as "StarOffice")? Charwinger21 (talk) 06:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, it's not a nickname. It's an insult.
Secondly, I don't conflate the two. Read the sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
We have.
All of reliable sources you cite refer to "Oracle Open Office" and "commercial development of" i.e. Oracle Open Office. Commercial development of Open Office is discontinued. Oracle announced so in May 2011 ("Oracle Corporation (NASDAQ: ORCL) today is announcing its intention to move to a purely community-based open source project and to no longer offer a commercial version of Open Office.").
The question is, what happened to the open-source project? You say it has been discontinued. Oracle and the sources you cite say Oracle "hand[ed] over control of the project to the community" i.e. the Apache Foundation.
For one-last time, is there a reliable source that says the project is discontinued? --Tóraí (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Two clearly don't. They may have conflated the product, but the statement is Sorry. What it appears is that we have two sources that support that it was planned to be discontinued and then later they decided to donate the code. No idea why this is such a difficult concept. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
1. They never planned on ending the open source version (as mentioned in the link that I just posted). 2. If "it was planned to be discontinued (which it wasn't) and then later they decided to donate the code", then that means that they donated the code. Charwinger21 (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
You're avoiding the question. "Do you disagree that OpenOffice is a separate product from Oracle Open Office (formerly known as "StarOffice")?" Charwinger21 (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
You're assuming that they never planned on ending the open source version. We have two sources that state the opposite. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
No, you have 1 blog and 1 article which both mis-interpreted Oracle's statement that they were shutting down Oracle Open Office to mean that they were shutting down OpenOffice. Multiple people have pointed this out to you across multiple different talk pages. Charwinger21 (talk) 06:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
No, we have multiple editors who assume that there's a problem with the sources. We have to use the sources, not interpret them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
They did donate the code, after they got push-back for wanting to discontinue it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
So, you agree that they donated OpenOffice to Apache then, correct? Charwinger21 (talk) 06:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't make assumptions on what are and are not different products. I leave that to reliable sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Then why are you insisting that OpenOffice and Oracle Open Office are the same product? Oracle and others all are in a agreement that Oracle Open Office and Open Office are separate products. Charwinger21 (talk) 06:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
You're assuming my understanding on the topic again. I have two sources that state one thing and it appears that you don't like them. That's understandable. No need to take it out on the person who provided them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I've opened threads at the reliable sources and original research noticeboards. --Tóraí (talk) 22:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
@Tóraí: The challenge is in being descriptive for the reader navigating to the article they seek via this dab. Since the "Successor" designation is the contested subject of a political battle, to use the terminology of either party in the disambiguation (where a full NPOV explanation is not appropriate) seems unwise to me. Since "Derivative" is clearly a true statement, it seems the term least likely to predispose a reader to either of the POV being sold by the project members. Hence I definitely believe all the derivatives should be described as "Derivative" and neither AOO nor LO allowed to be described on the disambiguation page as "successor" or "continuation".
Now, in a space where the full reasoning can be presented to the reader (like each of the destination articles), the various POV could be explained. All the same, some token needs to be assigned to the obvious discontinuity (in community, code, license and name) in OOo that occurred when LO was created, Oracle ceased and then Apache adopted their respective projects (in that order). I agree that "discontinued" has issues as a term, but I've not yet heard a term that reflects the situation adequately without endorsing one of the POV. Do you have a proposal for an NPOV alternative for the dab (and possibly a different term for the articles themselves)? Ideally it would be coined in a cited source, but if we have to coin it as a descriptive token for the complex situation in order to avoid endorsing a POV then that's what we have to do...
As for the use of "donation", I was responding to the anonymous Canadian's incorrect assertions used to support a POV alteration, rather than making a larger point. FWIW, my hunch after lots of reading is Oracle was just dumping OOo in the lot IBM asked them to use; as such it's a "donation" like my glass recycling bin is a "donation" :-) All the same, that source you cite is directly from one of the warring POV web sites! ClareTheSharer (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that presumes and answer to a key question: Is Apache OpenOffice a derivative of Or is it simply renamed? I linked above to a source that says it is simply renamed.
I agree that "discontinued" has issues as a term, but I've not yet heard a term that reflects the situation adequately without endorsing one of the POV.
"Discontinued" endorses one POV and is unsupported by reliable sources. Any unsupported and contested addition to the encyclopedia can be removed without notice. This statement is long contested and no reliable source for it is forthcoming.
All the same, that source you cite is directly from one of the warring POV web sites!
Care to clarify? I cited the Document Foundation, Oracle and the Apache Foundation.
As for proposed changes, how about just removing "discontinued" and instead describe the donation process:
  • StarOffice (briefly renamed Oracle Open Office after Oracle acquired Sun), a discontinued commercial and proprietary office suite acquired by Sun Microsystems and last owned by Oracle
  • (OOo), an open-source office software suite from Sun Microsystems, based on StarOffice, donated by Oracle to the Apache Foundation in 2011
  • Apache OpenOffice, an open-source office software suite, based on the donation of OOo to the Apache Foundation
I've left off LibreOffice per the presumable outcome of the RfC above. --Tóraí (talk) 09:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
AOO is very clearly a (proud) derivative of OOo, that's indisputable and descriptive. The dispute you describe is whether additionally it should be uniquely described as the successor to OOo, or whether the term can equally be applied to LO, or whether LO should be uniquely described as the successor to OOo or whether the term should be applied to neither (I have seen all these POV proposed in various places). The discussion on that subject is far from conclusive and indeed may be impossible to conclude.
Concerning "warring POV web site", I was referring -- I hoped wryly -- to your statement "For example, here is a source that says was simply renamed Apache OpenOffice."
In the spirit of exploring new compromises and avoiding POV, how about this to answer "may refer to:": (OOo), no longer supported, an open source office software suite, originally based on StarOffice; or one of the related projects:
  • Apache OpenOffice, by the Apache Software Foundation, combining code from OOo and IBM Lotus Symphony
  • LibreOffice, by The Document Foundation, based on code from OOo
  • NeoOffice, by Planamesa Software, a Mac-specific derivative of OOo
  • StarOffice (briefly renamed Oracle Open Office after Oracle acquired Sun), a discontinued commercial proprietary office suite acquired by Sun Microsystems and subsequently derived from OOo
It probably needs tweaking but I think this approach detours much of the POV controversy and includes all the points that someone referring to the dab needs to see. ClareTheSharer (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
The dispute you describe is whether additionally it should be uniquely described as the successor to OOo...
No. The dispute is whether OOo and Apache OpenOffice are the same thing (just renamed). The Apache Foundation say it is, as you see from the link. And other sources appear to treat it as such. This perspective is very succinctly described by PC Magazine: "LibreOffice is an offshoot from the old application suite, now renamed Apache OpenOffice."
As regards your proposed rewrite, you appear to be going out of your way to put distance between OOo and AOO. Sources, including the two organizations involved, say Oracle donated OOo to Apache and Apache renamed it AOO. I don't know of any that dispute that. Why not just say that? --Tóraí (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd also point out that this isn't a LibreOffice/Document Foundation POV vs. an Oracle/Apache Foundation POV. The Document Foundation wiki describes the situation thus, "In early June 2011 the source code and all trademark rights was given to the Apache Foundation. continues to be developed significantly there, with IBM as a major contributor."
And LibreOffice is described as, "LibreOffice was created by The Document Foundation, based on Apache OpenOffice, which is Copyright 2011 The Apache Software Foundation."
--Tóraí (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm very sorry, but if you have no interest in collaborating on text redrafting or even responding nicely to points I make trying to reach out to you, then the conversation with you has to end. I have no interest in simply having your dogmatic point of view repeatedly restated to me without nuance or movement. I suggest you leave the page alone for now. ClareTheSharer (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Clare, collaboration is a two-way street. And it requires listening. I listened to your point and I replied to it directly, with reference to published sources. If you want to walk away without collaborating that is your choice. Nobody can force you to play nicely and nobody can force you to step away from your dogmatic position.
The default position here is always that described at Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." But I would urge you first to attempt to reach a position that is agreeable to everyone and supported by reliable sources. --Tóraí (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I made a good-faith proposal based on the existing text that changed the minimum possible while avoiding the terms that you assert are POV. You assumed bad faith, read into it a POV and dismissed it out of hand and invoked WP rules to justify it. It's hard to see how it's me that's not collaborating. Selah. ClareTheSharer (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Clare, you do appear to be putting distance between OOo and AOO. And you "wryly" described the Apache Foundation as a "warring POV web site". That doesn't inspire confidence about the neutrality of your contributions.
But, OK, let's start over. Instead of trying to bite the whole thing at once, let's just take it one line at a time? Let's start with OOo? There's the two proposals:
  1. (OOo), an open-source office software suite from Sun Microsystems, based on StarOffice, donated by Oracle to the Apache Foundation in 2011
  2. (OOo), no longer supported, an open source office software suite, originally based on StarOffice; or one of the related projects:
Now, an issue with the second of these is the statement that OOo is "no longer supported". Apache no longer support 3.3. But the statment that is no longer supported is itself (pardon the pun) unsupported. Is there a source for it?
The statement also gives a misleading impression, IMO, when a substantial POV, posited by Oracle, Apache and the Document Foundation, and independent sources, is that OOo was donated to the Apache Foundation and continues to be developed (and supported) under the name Apache OpenOffice. I also don't understand why your proposal neglects to say what happened to OOo or who owned it/owns it (which is why I said it appears you are putting distance between AOO and OOo).
What was your objection to the proposal I made? --Tóraí (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Should OpenOffice be a broad-concept article?[edit]

Pls see OpenOffice be a broad-concept article?. Thx. Fgnievinski (talk) 03:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I have added Office applications suite in the software section and OpenOffice Basic in the file section. Can anyone please check if these links are appropriate for this disambiguation page. If not please remove the links. Pixarh (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I took out Office applications suite, I don't think anyone would come here looking for that. OpenOffice Basic looks good to me though - David Gerard (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much ! Pixarh (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Please see article Secretary (title) about how broad-concept articles are written. - üser:Altenmann >t 08:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

This is your response to removing agreed-upon links? How have you not been blocked? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Are you out of your mind? I moved them into "see also" section, exactly what was writthen on the consensus closure. - üser:Altenmann >t 03:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not actually out of my mind, but thanks for asking.
You get into an edit war, one you should have been blocked for, and your only point of discussion is this terse message above. The fact that you and another editor revert and it left the last edit of the article after your comment above meant that I assumed that you left the article gutted, as per your edit warring response here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Good to know. Next time look at the final result before spilling your mind, then nobody will challenge your mind. - üser:Altenmann >t 03:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
It is good to know. The next time you decide to get into an edit war, you should
  1. discuss your edits,
  2. seek consensus
  3. not make obtuse comments.
Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)