Talk:LibreOffice Calc

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the LibreOffice Calc article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on 9 September 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
	This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as High-importance).

Article

this page was originally a copy of the openoffice calc article i changed around a whole lot of stuff and updated where i could, this article will start off crappy but will improve as the two codebases diverge, openoffice is effectively discontinued and so its about time we had an article for this open source spreadsheet. most of this stuff shouldnt be put on the libreoffice article since that will just clutter and enlarge that article too much. that article should be a brief summary, but this article should go into more depth, a similar depth to the ms excel article which has its own article separate to the ms office article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123465421jhytwretpo98721654 (talk • contribs)

I have done a clean-up of the refs, removing refs that did not support the text or were about different topics (like OpenOffice), formatting refs and tagging. The one problem this article has is that it does not appear to meet the WP:GNG as the subject is barely mentioned in passing in just a couple of independent third party refs. It needs some more third party refs and ones that do more than mention Calc in passing or else this article is vulnerable to being deleted. I'll leave the tagged and unsourced text for a week so more refs can be found before paring it down. - Ahunt (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the release history table seems too long, we should probably cut it down a bit, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123465421jhytwretpo98721654 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would wait until the AfD is completed and see what the decision is. - Ahunt (talk) 11:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Link

Trying to fix a (now?) broken link in this article, but can't find the source. Can anyone help me to understand Wikipedia a little better?

The broken link is in citenote 13 to: "http://www.libreoffice.org/download/new-features-and-fixes/" this ought (now?) to be "http://www.libreoffice.org/download/3-3-new-features-and-fixes/" but all I can find in the citenotes is <ref name="LOFF331"> no "<ref>" tag as there is for some other refs. How do you get from the "<ref name>" tag to its contents in order to edit the link? Hedles (talk) 08:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit the whole article. Search for the name parameter. One of them will have the full URL. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Walter. Hedles (talk) 10:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is relevant

Eliminate now the "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for products and services. " --Jakeukalane (talk) 11:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Relevant" does not equate to "notable". See the guidelines that discuss notability and improve the article to make that go away. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]