Talk:Outlook.com/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

About name

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

Because Microsoft is referring to it as Outlook.com.heat_fan1 (talk) 14:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Asiaworldcity

We already do have three "Outlook"s: See Microsoft Outlook, Outlook Express and Outlook Web App. This will make them four.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Outlook is also a common term, and it is already a disambig page. --Damaster98 (talk) 03:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

'Unique' features?

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

Besides aliases and categories, most of the listed items do have an unique element to it in Outlook.com? --Damaster98 (talk) 03:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Damaster98

Here is a detailed report:

1. Active view: Not unique -- Yahoo! Mail has it
2. Office Web Apps integration: Unique
3. Conversation threading: Not unique -- Both Gmail and Yahoo! Mail feature it
4. Sweep: Unique but irrelevant -- Gmail and Yahoo! Mail have their own philosophy of how to treat mail.
5. Quick views and one-click filters: Not unique -- Both Gmail and Yahoo! Mail offer it
6. Aliases: No info
7. Categories: Not unique -- Both Gmail and Yahoo! Mail have it (as "tags" and "labels")
8. Instant actions: Not unique -- Both Gmail and Yahoo! Mail have it, although not exactly the same commands
9. Skype integration: Unique

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal

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

---

Hi.

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

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

Agree As stated in the article: Outlook.com will eventually replace Hotmail. I don't see a reason to keep two separate articles, Outlook is simply an upgrade to the existing Hotmail. For now, I think this should be redirected to Hotmail#Outlook.com — John Biancato 21:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

 Disagree There are lots of (web-based) interfaces that are preceeded by different names, and they should not be merged. Although not entirely the same, Microsoft Works is really something else than Office Starter 2010, but it is planned as its successor. Have you ever noted that almost every version of Internet Explorer has its own article (like Internet Explorer 5)?? Microsoft FrontPage has been replaced by Microsoft Expression Web and Sharepoint Designer back in 2006! And that's only Microsoft. I should really keep things separated here. You all might be interested in the Category:Discontinued Microsoft software (how do you link to a category page??). Dr. F.C. Turner - [USERPAGE|USERTALK] - 14:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi.

To link to a category page or file page, insert a colon sign (":") before the namespace name. Like this: [[:Category:Discontinued Microsoft software]].

As for your opinion, you are using the old Other stuff exists argument, which is null and void in Wikipedia. Perhaps other stuff are both notable and have little to no overlapping amount of contents (like Internet Explorer versions). Or perhaps, they need to be merged, only no one has proposed yet. Our current concern here is that in comparison, 90% of contents in Outlook.com and Hotmail are duplicate.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Just in response to "Perhaps other stuff are notable (like Internet Explorer versions)" - I would say Outlook.com and Hotmail are more notable than anything else. You also forgot one thing about whether an article should exist on its own or not - whether they are notable on their own merits. Given Hotmail's history, I'd say Hotmail is notable enough to have its own article. The issue I see here is not around whether the two articles should be separate or not, but whether Outlook.com should be further improved rather than leaving it as a copy-edit of Hotmail. This will solve the issue where "90% of contents in Outlook.com and Hotmail are duplicate". --Damaster98 (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Damaster 98. How are you?

You make a good argument that if they are improved, the duplicate content issue will be resolved. But can they be improved to that point in the near future, i.e. two months? If not, merging them, even if temporarily, improves the coverage of both subjects. After all, improving involves a lot of writing, regardless of whether they are merged or not. Unmerging would be done by three clicks.

By the way, I disambiguated part of my last message, since you have misunderstood it.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 06:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment While Hotmail's name and look have changed several times, Hotmail has also been included within those names. Microsoft seem to be marketing Outlook.com as an entirely new product, which I don't completely agree with myself. However, I think Hotmail should continue to have a separate article for it's historical record, and Outlook.com's article should remain for this new product, as it progresses. I expect the Outlook.com service as it is to evolve somewhat by the time it replaces Hotmail. Cloudbound (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Preview vs Introduce

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

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

Merge proposal (2nd)

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

---

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

• Support merge. Hotmail has received many upgrades over the years and had many names, e.g. Windows Live Mail. Outlook.com is just another upgrade with another name. Besides, these two article largely overlap. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Now that the migration is complete, whilst Microsoft markets Outlook.com as a brand new service, it's basically the same thing with some new features (like Message History, Skype calls...etc.), so a merge now makes sense. However during the merge please ensure that all information on both articles are retained (unless they're duplicated due to copy-edit at the beginning). --Damaster98 (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support Oppose - I think it is a new product, it is quite a bit different from hotmail, but even as an upgrade it should be a separate article. As comparison Internet Explorer 8, Internet Explorer 9, Internet Explorer 10 have their own articles. Each version of Internet Explorer is an upgrade, probably with even less differences between them than hotmail and outlook.com, but they get their own articles. The same can be said with each version of Windows. Or even sequels to movies. There is no reason in the world the articles should be merged. Me5000 (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hi. "Other stuff exists" is seldom a valid argument. In the meantime, if you feel those articles on Internet Explorer can safely be merged, well, go ahead and propose. However, it does not matter how different those products are; what matter is the size of what we write about this difference. Only once the size became significant, we can have a separate article. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Alright. The article has a lot of duplicate information and is overall a poorly written article, but that shouldn't be a reason to merge the articles. Instead the article should be improved(it's been awhile since I've been on wikipedia, I think there might even be an improve tag?). It appears someone basically just copy and pasted from the hotmail article, the whole thing should be re-written. There should be a review/reception section. Maybe an interface section. Me5000 (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hello again, Me5000. Putting up the "improve the poorly written article" makes sense when there is an effort to keep the articles impoverished and underdeveloped. Take the size issue like this: Pretend there is a genie that would upgrade both articles to utopian state with a flick of his magic wand. Would the result be significantly different? i.e., so different that warrant separate articles? IMHO, it wouldn't. The articles would still largely overlap because the genre, nature, developer, philosophy of development, method of development and feature set of these allegedly different web apps are the same. Description of user interface and critical commentary would differ but these materials do no survive a pruning because they are intricate details.

Please don't take me wrong: You are more than welcome to prove us all wrong by developing two significantly different articles. (Since the history of both articles are retained, you will have all the material you need to do so, if it is indeed feasible.) I assure you, I will be the first to overturn my position. Best regards, 17:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• I understand. It will be a better article simply by merging and will reduce redundancies that would be there even with improvement. I am changing to support. Me5000 (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support - When outlook launched it was very similar to hotmail, but it has and is evolved as outlook and ultimately I think the articles would be better together as one. And a lot of the hotmail article information could now be condensed. And have to be careful about not ending up with 2 very similar articles. Mark999 (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I disagree. The history of Hotmail is important. It was developed outside of Outlook, was a seminal company during the tech boom, was one of the first viral marketing success stories, etc etc etc. All of this would be lost or buried to potential readers of the Hotmail page. Yoddler (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hi. What you are opposing is a delete, not merge. We are discussing merge here. Nothing is lost in a merge. Oh, and by the way, you don't have to shout. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support with reservations The current article is primarily about the service as it stands, and that service is now outlook.com - it's just a rename. However, normal practice on a merge is to create a redirect (ie, from Hotmail to Outlook.com and we shouldn't do that. Instead, the current section Hotmail#History should be promoted to be the Hotmail article; we have several historical articles on .com era services that are no more, and this should be one of them. Richard Gadsden (talk) 08:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC) 08:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose What we know if Outlook.com will the merger site of many apllications, not only Hotmail ??? And in this case, why didn't you merge WLM with Skype???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anas1712 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Because Windows Live Messenger is still around in mainland China, where as Hotmail has become Outlook everywhere. Mark999 (talk) 01:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Reddit AMA as source for IMAP announcement

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

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

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

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

Hi.

I am very sorry for the second revert. It was a mistake. I should have self-reverted but it totally went out of my mind that I had reverted the same thing before. Very sorry. Anyway, when I saw CallawayRox's third revert I decided that my mistake has eliminated a chance of having a collegial talk with CallawayRox. So, in a way, I am glad you started this discussion thread. Still, I am very sorry for the inconvenience that I made.

At this time I have nothing to add. You were thorough.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The reddit AMA is the same WP:SPS WP:ABOUTSELF as the official blog. IAmA is verified by the mods and Steve Kafka wrote the comment and the blog post. The quotes show that reddit was first. Lots of sources [3][4][5][6][7][8][9] noted the announcement on reddit. CallawayRox (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Reddit is not owned or published by Microsoft, so I don't think WP:ABOUTSELF applies. The question remains - is Reddit considered a reliable source on Wikipedia? I tried searching through the archives at WP:RSN but didn't find anything.

Also, given that we already have a perfectly valid source (the official blog post) that no one is disputing, why do we even need the Reddit comment? Isn't one source enough?

Indrek (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

This policy also applies to pages on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook. Who controls the account matters. OutlookOnReddit is the Outlook.com team. CallawayRox (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi.

The original concerns that led me to contest the original edit are now addressed. One reason was undue coverage. The section was about IMAP and the article was about Outlook.com, but the bulk of contents with which I had trouble were about IAmA. Yes, I agree that if there was a paragraph about IMAP support, it would not have mattered. The second was a different aspect of RS than one that is currently being discussed; it was the fact that you can't know if it is first announced there, only announced there or even announced there, per se. In fact, the whole edit seemed such a glaring error that, as I said in my edit summary, I thought it was a joke. (Have you ever seen those joke articles that go sprawling out of context? E.g., they are titled "Hitler's suicide" and they continue "On DD MMM YYYY, Hitler shot himself with Weapon X. X is produced by Y. Y is first founded by Z. Z was an avid fan of [...]".)

But did I mentioned that these concerns are addressed now?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I still have my doubts about Reddit as a reliable source. Yes, I know the AMA accounts are verified (everyone knows that), but is that process considered thorough enough for Wikipedia's standards? More importantly, is that something we can (or should) decide here and set a precedent for?

I also maintain that one source is sufficient for this claim, but if the majority view is that IMAP support being mentioned on Reddit first is somehow significant, why don't we use any of the number of secondary sources posted above (such as this one)? Indrek (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'm going to replace the Reddit link with one of the secondary sources (probably the ZDNet one I linked to) in a couple of days. Indrek (talk) 13:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Whats precident have to do with it? The reddit post was first, end of story. CallawayRox (talk) 19:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Precedent in the sense that if this is the first time this issue has come up (Reddit as WP:RS), I think we should discuss it a bit more thoroughly than "The reddit post was first, end of story". Indrek (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Its not like every one is going to start citing reddit. CallawayRox (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how that's relevant. If it's a reliable source, then sooner or later someone will use it. And if no one does, then that's a good reason for us to evaluate it all the more critically. Indrek (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I have no objections. Secondary sources are better than primaries. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I enquired about Reddit on WP:RSN and was advised that IAmA's could be treated like a regular interview. I suppose I hadn't considered that angle. While I still believe that multiple sources are unnecessary for the content in question, this isn't big enough an issue so I'll leave it as it is now.

Regards, Indrek (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Microsoft Office Online

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

Transition to Outlook.com

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

Chinese attack

Chinese hackers launched unsubtle attack on Microsoft Outlook servers http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2390944/chinese-hackers-launched-unsubtle-attack-on-microsoft-outlook-servers Is this something that should be added to the article? Ottawahitech (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Outlook Apps

Should their be a section about the Outlook app for Windows, iOS and Android?

Daylen (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Windows 10 Facebook share

There needs to be something here about the password share feature with Facebook on Windows 10. A quarter of a million people came here last week, most likely looking for it. Serendi^podous 07:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

WiFi Sense is a Windows 10 feature, I don't think there's any particular need to cover it in this article.

Also, I don't see where you got the "quarter of a million" figure from. The link you posted has Outlook.com at ~39 thousand visitors. Indrek (talk) 08:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

It was for Hotmail. Serendi^podous 23:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Merge

I suggest we merge Outlook People, Calendar_(Microsoft_service), and Outlook.com. If not they should each have their own sections and use the main article template. We also must create Outlook tasks. This page should be renamed to Outlook Mail, it is no longer Outlook.com. That refers to all of the services here is how it is supposed to be

Outlook on the web:

• Outlook Mail
• Outlook People
• Outlook Calendar
• Outlook Tasks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ians18 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 17 August 2015

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: not moved. The consensus is that it is simply too soon for this move, there is no evidence that it has become the most common name in reliable sources (likely because it has only been rolled out to a very small subset) and there does not seem to be a guarantee that "Outlook Mail" will become the new common name, only that it seems likely. Jenks24 (talk) 16:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Outlook.com → Outlook Mail – This is the new name for the product. – Ians18 (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa and Ians18: This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: It isn't. I visited the website. It still says "Outlook.com". I am already flabbergasted by the attempt to merge Outlook Web App and Outlook.com and make a fictional product from it. I have already express my opposition by reverting the merger, per Wikipedia:Editing policy § Talking and editing. (If either of the visitors are willing to learn more about this type of contesting, study an essay called WP:BRD is recommended.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment: Ians18, is it possible that you are a victim of Microsoft's confusing product naming? You see, we have Word Web App, Excel Web App, PowerPoint Web App and OneNote Web App, but Outlook Web App is not one of them. This name was already taken. So, they called it Outlook.com instead. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
• Ians18 has posted this source in User:Codename Lisa's talk page: [10] Outlook Mail is a component of what was once called Outlook Web App and is now called "Outlook on the web". But "Outlook.com", formerly "Hotmail" is still "Outlook.com". It hasn't become "Outlook Mail" yet. No prejudice against a another rename request when and if it became "Outlook Mail". Also, I blame Microsoft for its unconcentrated and confusing brands. Fleet Command (talk) 15:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
• Outlook Web Access has not existed for a long time, that is outdated. Codename_Lisa, I think you've also been confused with their branding. Outlook Web Access is the old name for Outlook Web App. This image here is Outlook Web App, not Outlook Web Access. Also, this interface has since been abandoned to become Outlook Mail as seen in screenshots here. Finally, by the notice here, Outlook.com is also becoming Outlook Mail. As for me, both have been updated to reflect the new branding. However, it is on slow rollout and it is in preview. What I'd like to note is that users should do more research into what is going on before reverting edits. Please also note Wikipedia is not a crystal ball also does not apply because the feature has been announced and is already rolling out. Cheers, Ians18 (talk) 01:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

"Outlook Web Access is the old name for Outlook Web App" Is this your distraction tactic? You merged Outlook Web App into Outlook.com and then subverted contents to erase the mention of either names. That's the controversial disputed action and that's what we are discussing.

"Outlook.com is also becoming Outlook Mail".

1. The phrase "Outlook Mail" is not even mentioned; they only say "Improvements are coming to the Outlook.com web experience but your password, login, and data won't change." There is no mention of a name change. It seems to me that there is not going to be one either.
2. Even if they had explicitly said "we are changing the name too", I'd wait until they do it before moving the article; Microsoft is famous for changing its mind. Plus, the waiting is the standing consensus because it has precedence in Borland Delphi and HD Photo renaming. (See their talk pages.)
3. Under none of these circumstances you are allowed to subvert the fact and make it look like "Outlook.com" and "OWA" never existed. (Direct violation of WP:V.) Not only the mention of the names stays in the article, Outlook Web App and Outlook.com will remain separate because they cover different backgrounds and their co-existence does not entail a content fork. We don't merge articles just because their subjects use blue in their user interfaces.

Fleet Command (talk) 09:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not trying to hide the fact Oulook.com exists, because I clearly left the section in the Outlook Mail page. Also I left information about the Outlook Web App in the Outlook Mail page. The OWA article is clearly outdated, so would you rather me merge Outlook.com into that? Outlook Web App.

Did you even check the source? "Formerly known as the Outlook Web App (or OWA for short), our browser-based Outlook experience will simply be referred to as “Outlook on the web” going forward." Outlook Mail is a subset of Outlook on the web, I will create an article for that. Calendar, People, and Tasks are now under Outlook. [11] As for Outlook.com page I clearly made a section titled "Outlook Mail on Office 365", which is similar to how Tomorrowland exists in both Disneyland and Disney World, but are on the same page.

I never could finish the conversion because it was reverted. I needed to update the infobox for the O365 which was still Outlook.com and I had no time to update the intro section to include information about Outlook Mail on Office 365, or mention that it was called Outlook.com. If we merge the articles again, I can clear it up and add more to the intro Ians18 (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

"The OWA article is clearly outdated..." – Articles get outdated from time to time; we update them.

"...so would you rather me merge Outlook.com into that?" – We don't fix outdated articles by merging other random articles into them.

"Did you even check the source?" – Yes, I did. And made this edit based on it: [12]. But unlike you, I do not feel free to interpret them so wildly. I don't throw caution to the wind.

"Outlook Mail is a subset of Outlook on the web" [~snip~] "Calendar, People, and Tasks are now under Outlook." – This part is completely true! OWA and OotW always had Mail, Calendar, Tasks and People. Even the Microsoft Outlook desktop app had them too. Outlook Web App article must cover them all. (There is a rename potential for this article when Exchange 2016 was released.) But they are not the same as Outlook.com, Calendar (Microsoft service) and People (Microsoft service). These three are based on MSN services with different backgrounds. As such, regardless of how many times Microsoft merge them, they must stay separate.

"I will create an article for that." – Seriously, you think edit warring is the best solution? (Your edit is already disputed once; Wikipedia policy is to stop editing and start establishing consensus instead.) Taking such forceful measures is only pushing your own luck; you eliminate the vestiges of all doubt that is in me already. But finding secondary sources helps a lot.

Fleet Command (talk) 11:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

If you read WP:BRD, you will see it says "Be Bold" again. If you let me complete my edits without reverting them (meaning I finish all my edits) you will see I have proven my point. If you believe that an Official (primary) source, that is the Office Blog, is wrong and that the Microsoft forums is wrong (infrastructure move to O365), and that some users are receiving the preview, then you like keeping Wikipedia out of date. Wikipedians are supposed to update articles, not disregard facts. Ians18 (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if Codename Lisa is away, but she has not answered me back. Replying is part of the WP:CYCLE.

Let's take a look at WP:CRYSTAL, shall we?

1. "Individual scheduled or expected future events..." For OWA, the conversion has already occurred, what's your point here? OWA has already been converted to Outlook on the web. So has some of the Outlook.com/Microsoft accounts.
2. "Individual items from a predetermined list..." We know very specific information from these sources [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. These are uncontroversial, and undisputed facts.
3. "Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation..."Here we have a first-party and official channel, this does not apply.
4. "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors..." Since this has already occurred for some, this no longer applies

From where I stand, WP:CRYSTAL is not applicable. I really don't see your point. Just because you have it doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Alright, now let's look at what you said:

...becoming Outlook Mail...that are parts of Outlook Web App / Outlook on the web right now... FleetCommand, you've been mistaken I did not say that they are parts of OWA. You have been mixed up as well. Outlook on the web is NOT Outlook Web App, Outlook Web App is gone and now Outlook on the web has taken its place. In addition, Outlook.com is also "Outlook on the web" because it has the same infrastructure. Mail,Calendar, Tasks, and People are all part of that. No, they changing Outlook.com into O365, they are converting the infrastructure and upgrading both of them.

I think they haven't and we should wait and see. Microsoft has a tall history of changing its mind midway.... This violates WP:POV, you are to remain neutral and unbiased against Microsoft, just because they had a history doesn't make it true now. You are also violating Verifiability... Is there any evidence they will change their mind? No. Even if they did, we would update the articles to reflect.

You see it has already occurred, I can see the branding and I have posted screenshots. In addition winbeta.org and neowin.net (both reliable sources) have verified my edits already. Ians18 (talk) 05:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Ians18. To summarize, you are engaged in combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. To make matter worse, you persistently repeat some of your false statements and try to game the system instead of engaging in a healthy discussion or making any attempt in consensus-building.

Now, consider that I am not here to fight. I am here to edit cooperatively. However, as long as you refuse to get the point (as opposed to disagreeing with it), engaging in conversation futile. So, my oppose verdict stands for the time being. If you wish me to reconsider it, please try to give a fair answer to our objections (well, my objections at least), refrain from branding the participants of the discussion and refrain from edit warring. A note: I have reverted the message you posted in my talk page for this same reason.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 13:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, Fleet Command actually believes WP:CRYSTAL is in effect, because it hasn't occurred for him/her. And, instead of addressing my verified sources and points, Codename Lisa has morphed this argument into a personal argument engaging in conversation futile. and To make matter worse, you persistently repeat some of your false statements. Put simply, Codename Lisa, you have decided to disregard the D in Bold, Revert,Discuss because you fail to even address my points even putting them off as amateur or clueless. Well, that, too me, characterises an unhealty discussion, resorting to ad-hominem attacks rather that addressing the issue. I have clearly state my points above.

• Want to talk UI: look at this picture, notice how everything looks exactly like Office 365's Outlook Mail, the UI and the branding. Also take a look at the URL it has the exact naming scheme with "owa/#path=/mail" There's verifiable proof.

• Look here at this picture of the launcher. Notice how it contains Outlook Tasks (and actually now it contains Docs.com, it has in fact changed to the new O365 infrastructure, obviously Tasks was not their prior to the Outlook on the web preview.

• Finally, look here at the options page Notice how the servers are outlook.office365.com

If you are thinking that this is my own original research, then you are sadly mistaken. I am using multiple verifiable sources.

Look at this source here:WinSuperSite also Thurrott's pretty reliable, right? notice how he says "moving to an Office 365-based infrastructure"

I am simply going off the branding here (we should combine the articles) If you notice on my calendar edit here, I actually keep the Calendar in O365 as a separate infobox much like Tomorrowland; I kept the history and sections separate as well. @Codename Lisa please also address why the help page for outlook.com clearly states:"If your account has been upgraded, the information in this article may no longer apply. Go to Welcome to Outlook on the web to learn more.".

Here's what I see on the O365 side. Already, OWA is gone, let's get that established. That should be uncontroversial, correct? Sources: and

I don't have to prove anything to you, I'm simply stating the evidence and facts. If you have evidence to show from your POV, I'll gladly take a look. I really want to work with you, especially since we were able to resolve our differences once before. Thanks, Ians18 (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I see from [18] that Outlook Web App should now be renamed Outlook on the web, as that is the name Microsoft have said they will now start referring to it as.

With regard to Outlook.com, I'm not ready to see this article renamed or merged just yet. I haven't seen the preview for myself yet either, but that's not what's stopping me. What is stopping me is that it isn't the full, finished product yet, that everyone will get when they login to their email. Once it graduates from the preview stage, then we can see what is happening with the services. I know Microsoft have said they are moving to an Office 365 infrastructure, but it might still be kept separate. I'm happy to support any merges or name changes once the services are up and running, out of their preview stages, and when we know for absolute certain what is going on. Doing it now during a preview is too early. Cloudbound (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Cloudbound. "Outlook on the web" only applies to Office 365 and Exchange Online. Exchange Server still calls it Outlook Web App, because it is not on the web, but on the local intranet. A web app needs not be on the world wide web; it only needs to run on a web browser. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello again, Ians18

Before I start: Your link that is supposed to go to Calendar (Microsoft service) actually goes to Shock and awe article.

Now, much of your retorts applies to what FC said, not me. And no, I am not ignoring the D of BRD, because I did ask you a question and you are yet to answer it. When you do answer, we know where we stand and we can make compromises for each other. But I'll make it easier on you: Because you and FC have dispute(s) outside the area of the dispute between you and me, let's reset. After all, this branch of replies is ours.

There are two issues that you and I are disputing: Rename and merger.

• Let's start with the rename first. Perhaps you've heard me saying it before: Patience is one of the virtues of an excellent encyclopedia writer. My position is: Has the rename occurred yet? (If yes, why don't I see it when I log in?) If no, then a rename discussion is out of question; we shall wait until it occurs, and then some more, until the new name becomes the de facto name, per WP:COMMONNAME.
• Merger is easier. OWA still exists in Exchange Server; unlike in Office 365, it hasn't become "Outlook on the web" yet. (Because it is not on the web; it is on the local intranet hosting Exchange Server.) Let's assume their fate becomes like the fate of Windows Defender, Microsoft Security Essentials and System Center Endpoint Protection; i.e., the become almost similar in every aspect (even the look) except in the name of the offering. They still have different backgrounds. I am talking about the background from Exchange Server 5.5 through Exchange Server 2010. This background cannot be merged. So, until the fate of the Outlook.com's name becomes apparent, I agree with two articles (Outlook.com and OWA) that have overlaps, even the same screenshots. After that, we can discuss what to call the two articles but they remain separate.

No a couple of things that you might be interested in:

1. My take on what you said in paragraphs 2 through 6: I've checked these sources. They are very careful neither to claim nor deny a possible future rename of Outlook.com to Outlook Mail. Really careful. I know how reporters write; and I can see they are using longer sentences so that their text remain safe whether a name change occur or not. Richard Hay even comments on the theme and mentions the "Outlook Mail" app in Windows but does not comment on the name in the title bar. Like me, they know that Microsoft leaves the naming decision for the last. Still, you did not say what was the subject of these screenshot.
2. Potentials for compromise: Oh, sure. There are a lot. You can update Outlook.com and add information about the planned update and the beta program. You can even post a screenshot and mention the difference of name in the screenshots. (Of course, if this is a closed beta, your screenshot must not be self-taken, per WP:NFCC#4.)
3. On Paul Thurrott: "Microsoft fan Paul Thurrott", as the mainstream media once called him, is not a reliable author. We used WinSupersite.com cautiously and only when it reported something (not Paul's own musings or judgments) because it received Penton oversight. But thurrott.com is an outright self-published source.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Codename Lisa,

Thanks for your reply. My answer to your question, ...a victim of Microsoft's confusing product naming... is no. However, I did make an error in merging OWA into Outlook.com, clearly that is not happening. Rather both are going into the new Outlook on the web experience. I feel a few things need to be set straight:

1. First and foremost, Outlook on the web has already rolled out to Office 365 users, for those users, it is a finished product.
2. Second I think you don't know how Exchange works. Exchange Online can be part of Office 365 and Exchange Server is a product hosted well... on a server.
3. Third, OWA is a part of Exchange Server that is online which is hosted as "https://<Domain Name>/OWA" meaning it is online, and so will it when it is migrated to Outlook on the web
4. Fourth according to here, Outlook.com has moved (for some users) to Outlook on the web!

BTW: This is not a closed beta, but rather on a slow roll-out.

1. Fifth, let me make it clear there is still some separation. Please look here (correct link this time) and notice how I clearly leave two infoboxes and introduce the page with a clear and concise distinction between Outlook Calendar for MSA and for O365.
2. Sixth, and perhaps most importantly OWA is a component of Exchange Server and coming with Exchange Server 2016, Microsoft is renaming OWA to Outlook on the web as clearly stated by Mary Jo Foley (who is in fact not Thurrott)

Summary: Exchange Online and Exchange Server and O365 have OWA which is now completely Outlook on the web. Outlook.com (plus Calendar and People) are moving to the O365 infrastructure and, as part of the Outlook on the web update, will have the branding Outlook Mail, Outlook Calendar, Outlook People, and Outlook Tasks.

Thanks, Ians18 (talk) 23:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Ian

1. I have no problems with this.
2. I have access to an Exchange Server and know how it works. As a matter of fact, your second sentence is exactly what I said. I have no problems with it.
3. Aha! There is a fine problem here. Yes, it is online. But "online" does not mean "on the world wide web". Outlook Web App is hosted on a local Intranet. In other words, users inside a company building can reach OWA by typing http://www.company.local/owa inside a web browser but users outside a company cannot because "company.com" is registered with the company's own DNS server. It does not even have to be /owa/. You can have it on /my_secret_sexy_app/ if you want to.
4. This time, you said it right. I agree with this wording. But it hasn't happened yet. When it happened, we will act when WP:COMMONNAME requirements are fulfilled. I am one of the earliest online Microsoft customers and I usually get the MSA rollouts earliest.
5. Sure, I am looking forward to it. But again, it hasn't happened yet. When it happened, we will act when WP:COMMONNAME requirements are fulfilled. (Also, please make your decision: Is #1 the most important or #6?)

Summary: I agree with your summary right up until you said "will have the branding [...]". From that point onward, WP:SYNTH.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Codename Lisa,

I have a couple of questions:

• While OWA for Exchange Server is not on the WWW, it is still online (as an employee you can access it from say, Hawaii even if your office is in Florida). However, how does this matter to splitting OWA into each individual Outlook article and merging the proper Outlook MSA articles? I am not here to dispute whether it is online or not, rather combine the articles into proper branding.
• They have already launched Exchange Server 2016, why not update the article? Notice here, expand "What's new from upgrading from Exchange 2016" and look at the OWA to Outlook on the web section.
• How can you say the MSA conversion hasn't happened yet? I actually have access two Outlook on the web through my secondary MSA. I have posted clear screenshots, and more information. You stated that you usually get the MSA roll-out first, well obviously that hasn't happened. Are we supposed to wait until you or FleetCommand receive the preview? To me that's a little ownish.
• I really don't see how it is WP:SYNTH, when they clearly stated the branding is changing. I also told you we would keep separate sections for the O365 and the Exchange sections. You could handle the Exchange Server part if you'd like. In addition, the OWA article is now incorrect and the Exchange article doesn't even mention Exchange 2016.

Thanks, Ians18 (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi.

• The employees in Hawaii cannot do that unless the Exchange Server is placed in a DMZ (computing) or a VPN solution like Kerio Control is deployed. Otherwise, they can only send emails to the addresses hosted on it but they cannot reach OWA. And you are right; it has no bearing on merger eligibility. As I said earlier, what concerns me most in the merger is the loss the background between Exchange 5.5 through Exchange 2010, which cannot be merged into Outlook.com. Within this period, nothing between them is the same; neither the user interface, not the infrastructure and not even the protocol. (Exchange and OWA use MAPI/RPC protocol while Outlook.com used/uses WebDAV, DeltaSync, POP3, IMAP and EAS.) I was considering a merger of OWA into Microsoft Exchange Server but this started.
• "Launched"? The launch is a party. But Exchange 2016 has not yet reached the release to manufacturing milestone. When it happens, everyone can obtain a trial copy from Microsoft Evaluation Center and try it. Last time I heard, Exchange was planned for RTM in September 2015. When it happens, we can rename Outlook Web App into Outlook on the Web. You can create redirect for the latter because the O365 one is live.
• It does not necessarily have to happen to me or FC. But your screenshots have the words "Preview" on them an no reliable source is reporting a release to web yet.
• That's just it: I cannot see "they clearly stated the branding is changing". On the contrary, they are careful to say "infrastructure is changing". And from all the other discussion that I see, FleetCommand, ViperSnake151 and Cloudbound don't see it either.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Codename Lisa,

1. There would not be any loss if the proposal is carried out as I am not suggesting we merge Microsoft Exchange. In fact, there should be a section there that describes Exchange Server in more detail, with a sub-heading on the Outlook on the web component of Exchange Server, it can briefly describe the history of Outlook on the web as it was OWA previously.

1. Take a look at Marriot's OWA, notice I can access the login page from my own computer. Obviously, that is connected and hosted from their own internal servers. The mail server is Exchange Server and the part that makes it online WWW. I don't know or care about the security behind it because that is not what I am talking about. If you want to update the Microsoft Exchange article, please be my guest. But remember, OWA is a WWW connected component of Exchange Server where the company-private emails are hosted on

1. MSA Outlook Mail: If you look here at the WinBeta article, notice how it has begun to "slowly roll-out to a small subset of users"
2. Here's another source here, it clearly says Outlook Mail in the images. I am simply basing the moves off of branding. Do you expect them to rename it back to Outlook.com? I honestly don't since the information and product is already "released to world" You must not understand Microsoft's new strategy, but this is much like Gmail rolling out new features, it slowly disseminates to everyone rather than Google "flipping a switch" all of a sudden.
3. Exchange Server 2016 is already in preview as of July.
4. Outlook Mail is on a slow release to world, it was supposed to be opt-in, but that has not occurred yet. If we can create the Outlook on the web article, but hold off on the article renaming, I can be fine with that. Also, I want to hold off on deleting the MWSS template as it is quite obvious that this is how the services will end up being Ians18 (talk) 00:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

1. Create Outlook on the web page: Place sections MSA and O365 with other sections including Outlook Tasks, Outlook People, Outlook Calendar, and Outlook Mail.
2. Rename all services currently Calendar (Microsoft service) and People (Microsoft service) to Outlook Calendar and Outlook People
3. Within those, add information about the previous OWA and the older "web access" in the intro and proper sections
4. Add two info-boxes, one for O365 and one for MSA. (Because Exchange Server can purchased as part of O365 we don't need three)
5. Link back to the Outlook on the web page
6. Create Outlook Mail page
7. Place template {{MWSS}} or {{MWSS/collapsed}} on all proper pages
8. Split OWA and merge proper contents with Outlook on the web and Outlook Mail page
9. Merge Outlook.com with Outlook Mail.
10. Update O365 and MSA pages to reflect changes, and new information Ians18 (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

This proposal is already contested by Codename Lisa, Cloudbound, FleetCommand, ViperSnake151. Discussions can be found under § Requested move 17 August 2015, Talk:Outlook Web App § Outlook on the web, and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 24 § ‎Template:MWSS.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

How about we redesign the {{Windows Live}} box to include all of Microsoft's online services? Groove Music, Movies & TV, etc. Cloudbound (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

That box represents the old Windows Live brand and should not be changed. The brand existed, but no longer works with the current setup. However many (nearly all) of the products in there for example Messenger Mobile and Agents while discontinued, still exist as wikipedia pages. We still need a way to represent both the old Windows Live brand and the new Microsoft account and O365 branding. WikIan -(talk) 04:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

For the first time, I agree completely. {{Windows Live}} must not be touched. But Outlook.com is part of Office Online and Office Online is covered by {{Microsoft Office}}. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa:

Well actually I'd suggest a complete rewrite of {{Windows Live}} like this:

the template

desktop applications

Services

and all of these would be grouped into relevant categories as opposed to whether or not they were discontinued.

This is a rough draft as the Windows Live brand is historic like the {{Zune}} brand and Codename Lisa used the contemporary names "Zune Music" and "Zune Video" in the template to link to the present Groove and Film & TV services. It has already been implied that most of these services have been renamed, rebranded, merged, discontinued, or depreciated so having a specific "current" and "discontinued" sections within the template no longer make sense, this is just a rough draft and maybe I'm wrong on some services and applications, but "Outlook.com" was never a part of "Windows Live", nor was "MSN Hotmail" ever a part of "Windows Live", so having "Windows Live Hotmail" in it would make more sense than "Outlook.com", the same goes for "OneDrive" which I've renamed to "SkyDrive" in this draft.

--Cookie Nguyen (talk) 08:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cookie Nguyen: Well, this is the wrong place to propose this. The correct venue would be Template talk:Windows Live. But since a similar proposal is previously rejected, get ready to defend your proposal. The concern was that even though the brand got the axe, not all the services did were discontinued. Some are still operating under a different brand and name. Failing to observe that in the template is probably not in your best interest. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Logo without .com

Hello, everyone. And hello, Cloudbound. I hope you are reading this.

I am writing in regard to revision #688266022 which switched out File:Outlook.com logo and wordmark.svg for File:Outlook logo.png. In my opinion, the former has three advantages over the latter: First, it is SVG. It is scalable. Second, I find the ".com" in it an advantage. It helps keep the logo in the same line as the article title, so as not to defeat the purpose of WP:DAB. And mind you, while as our esteemed friend Cloudbound said "login site and loading screens use outlook logo without .com", the title bar and the shortcut menu in the site still say Outlook.com, not to mention its documentation page.

Please let me know what everyone thinks. I can easily clip out the ".com" portion out of the SVG. Also, if the community here likes some margin added to the SVG, that I can also do.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Codename Lisa. I'm more than happy for the SVG file to be altered to remove the .com suffix, since it is the best file format. You're right that the title bar and menu still say Outlook.com, but this is text, rather than the logo itself. Microsoft seem to be going for just Outlook in the logo now. Cloudbound (talk) 16:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

You could be right. I didn't think of that angle. But now that I am thinking of that angle, I think maybe it is because at the sign-in, Microsoft does not know whether you are about sign into Outlook.com or Outlook on the web. (The Office 365 offering, which also uses Microsoft account for sign-in.) That's why the deliberately used the ambiguous logo. So, maybe we shouldn't hurry yet. I've heard (see above) that an update is coming. We might have to replace the logo altogether.

Please feel free to call a WP:3O if my reply wasn't satisfactory.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'm happy to wait and see what happens. Cloudbound (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: Perhaps now it's time to remove the '.com' from the svg logo? It could then be used for Outlook on the web too. Cloudbound (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@Cloudbound: How does File:Outlook.com icon.svg look? —Codename Lisa (talk) 23:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: I'd prefer the Outlook name to be included too. Cloudbound (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I have upload to Commons problem and dying to sleep. Here is a link: View · Download. Do you mind uploading it yourself? It is SVG. —Codename Lisa (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I've uploaded it as File:Outlook logo and wordmark.svg. Cloudbound (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

---

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.