Talk:Microsoft OneNote/Archive 1

Key Shortcomings

The Key Shortcomings section strikes me as extremely POV. OneNote also doesn't walk my dog or spank my toaster, should those be added as well? OneNote is a notetaking application, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not someone's wishlist. Comments? Jgw (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the "key shortcomings" section, as it's POV and strikes me as typical anti-Microsoft slander. Also, although OneNote shares a lot of perceived "shortcomings" with it's competitors, they aren't documented on the other stages. Jgw (talk) 01:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were wrong to remove the bit about the lackof OLE embedding, as it is something that should be mentioned Jason404 (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tips

Anyone got any useful tips on how to use OneNote successfully? (This is not a request for advertisement and undue publicity). Perhaps these could be merged in to the main section of Onenote.

  What do you mean by tips? I use OneNote for school every day and I can navigate through it very easily.
I have a tablet PC and can write on it so i have experience with that also.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.9.123.91 (talk) 14:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft has quite a set of resources. Some are videos so you can just sit back and watch. For example:

why advertise? (vote)

I DON'T THINK THAT MICROSOFT SHOULD GET FREE PUBLICITY, WHICH THIS ARTICLE CLEARLY IS. IT SHOULD BE MARKED FOR DELETION. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hillarie (talk • contribs) 21:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see why we need to advertise the 3rd party freeware similar to onenote. seems to me someone just trying to get some free publicity. My vote:

Remove it seems to be free advertising and is not needed. --Nytemunkey 20:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here, Here! "*" I second the motion

I Third the motion. The "freeware" is only applicable to the worst versions of the mentioned products. Remove!

| Fourthed, removing, as the removes outweight the keeps. Jgw (talk) 01:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i think its fine its just saying there are alteratives to this program, anyway a mention of a name is hardly free advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.104.154 (talk) 08:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's necessary that a Wikipedia article be an advertising vehicle for a proprietary application, that although nice, is currently trapped on a single platform and tied to an excessively costly office suite. The mention of alternatives greatly increases the value of the article and I thank the contributors who have made such mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.108.130 (talk) 01:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, most of these do not meet the notability criterion, and those that do, do not need to piggy back on another software article for visibility. This is plain and simple advertising, and does not belong here. If you argue they were present as navigational aids, there are much better ways to accomplish that. Create a navbox that groups together all note-taking apps. Even now, the categories serve the same function. There is no need to make pov-pushed duplication of the same content. I am removing it. --soum ^talk 02:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a wiki page on Note Taking software, which OneNote is, which lists some popular alternatives (possibly discussing pros and cons of various packages). I agree listing free competitors on this page constitutes advertising; but there should be a place to find alternatives, as it would be of great value to some. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.177.122 (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article still here? Please remove this article, at least in its present form. It reads like brazen advertising and is very POV.

For example: "the familiar tabbed three-ring binder". Familiar to whom? (Certainly not to me.)
For example: "well suited for organizing information". As compared to a bucket, perhaps, rather than a database?
For example: "salient innovations". What makes it salient to the average reader?
For example: "This makes it a useful tool for workgroups". Why useful compared to alternatives?
For example: "Better still". Better by whose yardstick?

Stormerne (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Whether or not you like Microsoft, with 340 million downloads of just the app versions and who knows how many on office PCs (and macs), Onenote is unarguably notable enough for an article. Charles Baynham (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History and versions section?

When was the first release for OneNote? For other MS programs there is a history and version section. If the program is too new to justify a separate section, this could be mentioned without a separate section. Martinalex 10:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there is a version section in the article - all releases are covered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.12.103 (talk) 04:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Pratley of Microsoft describes how he wrote the first prototype, called Scribbler. Added to External Links. Vdm (talk) 09:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article text says the first version was in Office 2003, but the infobox says it was in 2012. One of these is wrong. Liam Proven (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in the infobox says "This infobox is not for the desktop version", hence the 2012 release date. IMO this makes no sence. Even if an infobox for mobile version is needed, it should be separate, and the primary infobox should be of the desktop version.

Oh, there is one. I'm sorry, the order is confusing to me. ENDrain (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Standalone

Can One Note 2007 be used stand alone? That is, does one have to run office 2007 to benefit from one note 2007?

Yes, OneNote 2007 can be used alone. You don't get the integration benefits of the rest of the suite (especially Outlook) but most of the OneNote features will work fine without the rest of the suite. ---B- 01:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least in the 2003 versions, it must be used stand alone! It has its own unique installation. But like the person above mentioned, unless Office is installed too, it loses the integration benefits since it has nothing to integrate with. -Lwc4life 16:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tough to start. I use a computer on which my employer has installed Microsoft office suite, but I don't know the associated e-mail account - and I don't know how to get it from my employer (which is my problem, not MS's), but I also cannot install it as a stand-alone. I keep getting jerked around, with the code I get sent not being accepted and all sorts of other garbage from MS. Then I get sent back to the non-stand-alone registration, which I keep being told I can't do without an associated e-mail. Also, the ad does not tell readers/listeners about the 500-note limit.211.225.33.104 (talk) 03:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Microsoft OneNote

All apps from Microsoft Office suite have pages named without the word "Office". I think this one should be moved as well. Thoughts?--Pethr 04:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Platform Support

I don't want to get into a revert war about this but the last set of changes was unnecessary. "Started support on" is awkward phrasing. "OneNote 2007 ended support for" makes it sound like MS no longer supports Windows 2000 which has nothing to do with OneNote. Also the "ended support for" line is unnecessarily redundant since we already have a line that says that OneNote 2007 requires Windows XP SP2 or later.---B- 01:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Key shortcomings

I don't understand the section on lack of OLE support. It is written in a confusing way. Please rewrite it. Thanks! Stephenchou0722 20:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

I removed the "References" section because it didn't contain any references to OneNote - only seemed to be linked to sites for competing products. I'm fine with mentioning competitors, but having an entire section of links to their external websites seems too much like advertising to me. ---B- (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "References" section still doesn't seem to fit to me -- this is a product page not a general "Notetaking software" page and adding the References seems to give a little more emphasis to products that aren't the one that is the subject of the page. Is there a Reference to OneNote on the Wikipages for those competitors? ---B- (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the person above. This seems to be the common bias against MS products.

Is there a reference to OneNote on the Wikipages for those competitors? Well, actually, yes, there is ... if you look at the EverNote article, you'll find that the fifth paragraph of that article consists of a list of competing products, the first on the list being OneNote. Potential users find these comparisons and cross-references useful (although the existence of the "notetaking software" category now makes them less important). Mentioning competing products supplies context, and provides convenient additional info for people who are interested in a class of product, but might only have one name to start their search from. An article on CPM will mention DOS, an article on Airbus will mention Boeing. It doesn't necessarily indicate bias. ErkDemon (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

bit of a wikipedia idiot so i'm just going to post on the talk page that One Note does feature an auto calculate feature then spacebar it gives you the answer.70.240.214.13 (talk) 05:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the sentence refering to Memoranda because it is not even vaguely similar to Onenote.

PDF export

Key features lists a PDF export capability. Shortcomings lists lack of PDF export. Which one is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.58.96.135 (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

“Does not natively support making notes to PDF documents” is confusing and I removed it. OneNote 2007 can export (“publish”) to PDF very easy. You can also import PDF document to OneNote (print using “Send To OneNote 2007”) and insert your notes there.--N Jordan (talk) 08:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mac Alternative

Someone suggested that Microsoft Word Notebook view is a comparable (albeit limited) alternative to OneNote. I am a recent Mac switcher, and can attest that their exists no comparable alternative for OneNote on the mac platform - either by Microsoft or any other third party developer. I have examined every single possible option and can say without equivocation that nothing comes close. OneNote is unique, and I think is the greatest thing to come out of Redmond in a long time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.201.122 (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, well. May I suggest Evernote for Mac http://www.evernote.com/about/download/#a-macwin . You will be surprised at its nice functionality and great features!! Redmond is lagging behind in many things, as always. ;-) EyeMD ^T|C 14:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Windows and Mac versions of Evernote work nicely and are available for download. The current web-version seems to be in beta-testing and is currently invitation-only. EyeMD ^T|C 17:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evernote now seems to be up and running for free download, for various platforms (Mac OSX, PC, Linux, iPhone, Andoid, Blackberry). ErkDemon (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought HyperCard would be an Apple alternative to OneNote though their model was a single, or limited number of, publisher and many consumers. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Headine-1: Microsoft launches free OneNote for Mac -- with some pieces missing . . . March 17, 2014

http://www.infoworld.com/d/applications/microsoft-launches-free-onenote-mac-some-pieces-missing-238516?source=IFWNLE_nlt_daily_pm_2014-03-17

QUOTE: “Microsoft's OneNote, the note-taking and Web-clipping app for multiple devices, is now available as a free-to-use product for Windows and -- for the first time -- the Macintosh.” [Acceptance and popularity remains to be seen.] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatives section

I propose that this section be yanked. Category:Notetaking software accomodates alternatives. If no one has any objections, I'll go ahead - xpclient ^Talk 06:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

Much of the text of this article is identical to http://www.msuniversitydesk.ch/index.php?cat=WG28&product=S26-02566-ENG. Judging from the tone of this section, I don't think that that site copied off of Wikipedia. Rather, I think that Wikipedia either copied that site or some other site that was trying to sell Microsoft OneNote. As such, the relevant sections needed to be de-copyvio'd and de-POV'd. --Hnsampat (talk) 01:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Product categorization difficulty Feature List Removal Vote

The real problem with this article is not that it reads like an advertisement, it is that it reads like a very bad advertisement: The reader cannot figure out what sort of animal OneNote is - maybe a screenshot would help ? I don't think taxonomy can replace description - knowing a tiger is a carnivorous mammal does not exactly describe its grace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.123.40.159 (talk) 02:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC) I've started to rewrite the header of this article to convey some of the innovative aspects of this software package; I'm thinking of bulk-deleting the feature list as I don't think it's useful in Wikipedia. Comments ? Ok, I'm the guy who wrote the new intro. Do I axe the feature list in toto, or is some nice barber going to do the trimming ?[reply]

The article is written in a very non-neutral style. I can't understand why Wikipedia doesn't institute some kind of automatic recognition of give-away phrases like "Even better," in a description of software. Surely some kind of algorithm could be used to spot this kind of crap, which plainly turns the article into a review, rather than a description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.63.58 (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the file format really proprietary?

Microsoft seems to document the file format here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd924743.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.207.171.218 (talk) 10:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The file format is a proprietary format but also an open format. It is released under Microsoft Open Specification Promise. Fleet Command (talk) 12:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Synchronization

I'm a little concerned about listing Dropbox and Live Mesh as viable synchronization methods. It's true that they do work for many people but neither are OneNote-aware and OneNote is not Dropbox (or Mesh)-Aware. Because of the local cache file it's possible that using a sync tool like that to sync COULD cause file corruption. SkyDrive or SharePoint are really the best web-based ways to sync a OneNote notebook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bschorr (talk • contribs) 15:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded - users VERY OFTEN run into corruption problems with onenote documents when DropBox and OneNote get into revision wars over which version of a file's state is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.76.130 (talk) 07:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

XML? Really?

The article currently states that:

Microsoft OneNote 2010 uses an open XML-based file format similar to Office Open XML file formats that is stored along with the attachments (such as pictures, video, etc.) inside a single binary format.^[7][8][9]

References 7, 8 and 9 are, respectively, Microsoft's OneNote File Format Specification, Microsoft's OneNote Revision Store File Format Specification and Microsoft's XML Schema Definition (XSD) File for OneNote.

I found this kind of hard to swallow. On even the most cursory examination, 2010 .one is clearly not Plain Old XML. However neither is it a zipped container of related-but-independent files as in Open XML formats. Perhaps it is some other container archive format around XML formats? Umm, doesn't look like it. If I use strings on a .one file, it finds all my text just sitting out in the open ready to read. You don't get that with any archive format more sophisticated than tar. Furthermore, I found several example .one files to be highly compressible, so if there is an archive container here somewhere, it is a very crappy one.

I believe the text I quoted from the article is wrong, and stems from a misreading of the cited specification documents. The specification documents do not state that the format is XML. The "OneNote Revision Store File Format Specification" does not even mention XML, and is in fact clearly describing a pure binary structure. The "OneNote File Format Specification" does very briefly discuss XML, but it doesn't say it is the OneNote internal format; all it says about XML is:

For readability in the examples, the content of a OneNote file is presented as XML.

"Presented as XML!!" That's not even close to the same as "is XML!!" It then goes on to give half a page of caveats about how these examples don't really represent what it is going on inside a OneNote file. On the contrary, wherever actual file values are shown, they are pure binary values, as 32 bit unsigned ints.

Furthermore, there are several structures which are defined as being identical to structures in the MS Word binary format.

The overall file structure is an unbalanced tree, which lends itself to display as XML for a low-level human-readable display format. However I believe that is the beginning and end of any similarity between this file format and Open XML. It is not files in a container, it is not XML, and the binary nodes resemble XML nodes only to the extent that both are trees. -- 203.20.101.203 (talk) 04:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Updating 2010 icon to 2013 icon

File:Microsoft-OneNote-2013-Icon.svg

I hope someone can update the 2010 icon with the new 2013 version when the time is right.
The new icon is at: File:Microsoft-OneNote-2013-Icon.svg
Zywxn | 07:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

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) 20:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Microsoft OneNote → OneNote – We should avoid prefixing product names with the company name per WP:Avoid branding.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "Avoid branding" is about sponsorship. This is a product of Microsoft, not a tournament sponsored by Microsoft. Are you saying that Microsoft didn't make this product and has nothing to do with it except to give money for naming rights? Aside from that, "OneNote" would violate 'avoid branding' as well, if you want to look at it that way, since product names are also used in branding, which means that this article can't have any name... Companies buy naming rights and use product names to brand buildings and events, not just company names. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 22:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per precedent (e.g., Microsoft Office) and the fact that WP:Avoid branding has nothing to say about article titles. Powers ^T 22:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm interested in this move and curious to see other arguments about it. ("Avoid branding" is an essay and doesn't seem helpful when considering this title.) When Microsoft introduced this product in 2002 they called it "Microsoft OneNote," but they now seem to be willing to call it just OneNote. They are doing the same with Office, which previously they always referred to as "Microsoft Office," which seems to be a change in their style. Of course Microsoft Office is an excellent unambiguous title (vs. the impossibly ambiguous Office). OneNote by contrast is clearly workable. I'm not sure where that leaves us. – Pnm (talk) 03:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Reviews

This section starts with "Christopher Dawson reviewed OneNote 2010", with neither a previous mention of this "Christopher Dawson" or a link (preferably an internal wikipedia link) to what character this is. Only at the end of the marketing-blurb (let's face it, someone stating "Someone else once upon a time stated this was a silver bullet!", with a link to that "someone else" stating just that, is really just an opinion piece).

Furthermore, this "Christopher Dawson" 1) claiming "OneNote is Office 2010's killer app in education", and 2) speculating "the app would be particularly useful as a tool for student notetaking", are not up to wikipedia-standards, not to mention both have pretty much been proved wrong. I almost felt like adding after the speculation part "He was wrong" :-), but that'd be bad form.

Basically, while a "Reception" section (like for many games), referring to external sites and review, would IMO be acceptable, having a whole (even if small) section for one unknown and unlinked persons review and speculations seems wrong. Especially when it reads like an ad or astroturfing. Making it a list of f.ex. "External reviews" (heh, a list of one single review?) could be acceptable. 85.229.218.51 (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Microsoft OneNote. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110124132601/http://www.newsden.net:80/download-microsoft-onenote-app-for-iphone-and-ipod-for-free-6126/ to http://www.newsden.net/download-microsoft-onenote-app-for-iphone-and-ipod-for-free-6126/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Microsoft OneNote. 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/20160507124427/https://support.office.com/en-us/article/What-s-new-in-Microsoft-Office-OneNote-2007-14231b91-f150-45a0-8fd6-f2736792f556 to https://support.office.com/en-us/article/What-s-new-in-Microsoft-Office-OneNote-2007-14231b91-f150-45a0-8fd6-f2736792f556

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 11:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 April 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 05:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft OneNote → OneNote – WP:COMMONNAME. No disambiguation is needed, as no other company makes a product called OneNote. ViperSnake151 Talk 18:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per WP:CONSISTENCY. Even if it doesn't require the disambiguation, moving it would make it inconsistent with the other Microsoft programs._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We are an encyclopedia, not Microsoft PR machine. ViperSnake151 Talk 14:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per WP:CONSISTENCY - Microsft Word doesn't go by "Word", Mic Powerpoint doesn't go by "Powerpoint", Mic Excel doesn't go by "Excel" .... so to be consistent Mic OneNote shouldn't just be OneNote, That aside not everyone's going to know what OneNote even is ..... I apparently have it and have never used it although it being known or not isn't really a relevent factor. –Davey2010^Talk 17:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per above points made Lazz _R 22:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per CONSISTENCY. It is Microsoft OneNote, not simply OneNote. The common name includes Microsoft. CookieMonster755 ✉ 21:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

OneNote 2019

According to Microsoft, there won't be a OneNote 2019, only the UWP app.

https://support.office.com/en-us/article/frequently-asked-questions-about-onenote-in-office-2019-6582c7ae-2ec6-408d-8b7a-3ed71a3c2103 ZFT (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft has discontinued further development, but OneNote 2016 can be installed with the Office 2019 installer and, at least in the Office Insider version I have, the interface has been updated to match other Office 2019 programs. The picture, however, should probably be referred to as "the final version of OneNote 2016," as all future development is halted in favor of the UWP app. --132.170.47.134 (talk) 13:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ZFT and 132.170.47.134: I've reworded the caption to reflect these changes, but it seems wrong to call it "OneNote 2016", as it is a screenshot of the Office 365 version of OneNote, with the new UI design and such. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 03:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

?

After reading this article I still have no idea what this application is supposed to do. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]

2018 update?

This article refers to a Windows 10 2018 update, but there are two 2018 updates (1803 and 1809 at least, for stable, consumer versions of Windows 10), whoever took this screenshot should notify this talk page or update the article with the update it is. --Qwerty123M (talk) 00:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Onenote categorised as a Google Chrome App?

No explanation in body; needs explanation or propose remove of categorisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:B378:AC00:CD7D:A503:C7CA:69E (talk) 23:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Onenote.com" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Onenote.com and has thus listed it at redirects for discussion. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 24#Onenote.com until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Qwerfjkl talk 11:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]