Jump to content

Talk:Microsoft Excel/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

This section should contain useful links to other websites relating to Microsoft Excel. At the moment there is an certain individual that is removing "useful" links from this section.

Is there any way to prevent this person from making any future changes ? RussellProctor 09:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Russell, you have been promoting your link under Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, and Microsoft PowerPoint. Wikipedia is not a collection of resources (Please see WP:EL), please refrain from adding what has been reverted 3RR. Your adding of links and reverting has previously been warned by an administrator, including impersonating administrationship. See [1]. You have also been vandalising the articles by replacing the url of Microsoft Office page with your own url (Bettersolution.com). Cocoma 10:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Cocoma, Thank you for the response. I can only assume that you do not use Microsoft Office on a regular basis (if at all) and therefore do not appreciate how useful my website is to thousands of people. My time is better spent elsewhere so I will not be changing the links anymore. I would be very interested to know why the following links are allowed though:

Thanks Russell 195.112.19.195 13:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I do use Microsoft Office often, but this is a completely different issue we are talking about here. Your site, does contribute to the usefulness of the article. You have though, been promoting your own links by placing it on top of the rest, without specifying reasons. You have also been vandalising the official link as stated earlier on. If you do take some time to post your discussion on retaining the link on talk page rather than being persistant on adding it back continuously or impersonating administrationship, it would definitely helps IMHO. You might also want to take sometime into reading Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Cocoma 18:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do we want this link? Lessons Learned Automating Excel from .NET 206.188.56.24 20:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Good source

A good source of product dates: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=complifeport —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlistairMcMillan (talk • contribs)

Excel can only go 2 IV65536. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.84.157 (talk • contribs)

Just use the letters at the bottom of the page. AlistairMcMillan 04:24, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That link is dead, just to let you know. --tyomitch 00:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Reference needed

This promoted development of a new spreadsheet called Excel which started with the intention to, in the words of Doug Klunder, "do everything 1-2-3 does and do it better". This led to the popular rumor that the name "Excel" means "X-out Lotus".

"In Googlis non est, ergo non est" - prove it, I can't find any references —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.0.197 (talk • contribs)

I don't quite know why this quote is still there. I've removed it. I can't find any reference to it. If you put it back, please support with a decent reference. peterl 22:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I am removing a comment that is marked as reference needed. I checked the statement against Microsoft and found discrepancies. [2] Happy01000101 (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Question

Nickptar stated in his revision: "Switch images and lists around. Windows is Excel's native platform, ergo it should be above the Mac." Excel came out for the Mac 2 years prior to the Windows version. Which should be first, Mac or Windows? Chronologically and alphabetically the Mac should be first, but Microsoft makes both Windows and Excel. LordBleen 03:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no POV bias towards either Mac or Windows, but I think it's safe to say that 99% of computer users associate Excel with the Windows version of the product. The list simply looks strange with the Mac version listed first. Alexthe5th 06:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Ads for computer programs

The "APIs and Tools" section seems like just a list of advertisement links.

My company's competitor is linked there. May I put a link to my company's product there too? But somehow this whole section seems to be against the WP spirit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.83.235 (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

By all means. Do not feel offended if it is later removed as irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.3.180 (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Gurus section

Just wondering what the Wiki Foundation policy is on self-promotion on this site. There is an "Excel gurus" section on this page that seems to be a list of conusultants that can build Excel solutions for you. I don't think it's an appropriate use of the wiki page to do this.

Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mckoss (talk • contribs)

Yes, let's also remove links to Linus and RMS from Linux page, and links to Miguel and, eh, RMS again from GNOME page. After all they might (and do) do things for money :) Hello? People listed in Excel gurus page contributed a lot to the common Excel knowledge pool. Most of them maintain free pages with tutorials, hints and various time-saving tips... Oh, and if meant Joe Erickson's "subtle" SpreadsheetGear promotion then yes, I agree with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.0.197 (talk • contribs)

I think there is quite a difference between someone who has been intimately involved in the creation of a product, and so forms an integral part of its history, and a third-party consultant that makes their living providing services based on their expertise with that product. I don't think the promotion of the latter is an appropriate use of the wikipedia article about Excel. I believe it falls firmly into the category of spam and should be removed. I reviewed all these Guru references and, while some of them do provide some useful "tips", the basic purpose of these references seemed to be to drive consulting revenue to the authors. None of the references provide any information on the historical development of the Excel, nor are they authoritative references on the use of the Excel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mckoss (talk • contribs)

Mckoss, people like John Walkenbach, Debra Dalgleish and other MVPs in the list you so readily deleted *are* Excel gurus and Excel history. Here are my USD$0.02, feel free buy yourself a much needed clue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.0.197 (talk • contribs)

Joe Erickson came up with a number of spreadsheet innovations later incorporated into Excel by Microsoft. In particular, Wingz for Macintosh was released in 1989 with charts (beautiful 3d charts implemented by Larry Horner), controls and drawing objects on worksheets, the HyperScript programming language (as opposed to Excel and 123's worksheet macros), the ability to define custom functions and more. Later, Mr. Erickson created Formula One which was the first reusable spreadsheet component as well as the first spreadsheet with built-in data validation. Formula One for Java was the first "server spreadsheet" with support for Java Server Pages, Excel Report generation, etc... Formula One and now SpreadsheetGear for .NET have Excel compatible calculation engines implemented by Mr. Erickson with full support for the many quirks of Excel. The number of special cases to deal with array formulas alone is enough that none of the other Excel compatible calculation engines have even bothered to implement them. Rest assured that Mr. Erickson will provide more innovations which will be incorporated into Excel over time. If this does not qualify him as an "Excel Guru", what does? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.95.61 (talk • contribs)

What does? Let me see: contributing to Excel community, writing Excel tutorials and books, helping people in Excel newsgroups, getting Excel MVP title after all... Writing some obscure spreadsheet application and putting 3 links to the same website on Wikipedia Excel page do not qualify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.0.197 (talk • contribs)
It is interesting to note that this debate was started by an individual (not me) who wonders whether creators of a product rather than writers, teachers and supporters of a product should be considered gurus. It is also interesting to note that you justify this Excel Gurus section by mentioning individuals who contribute to the creation of technology, and then you appoint yourself judge and jury to delete someone who has contributed to spreadsheet innovation as a full time obsession since 1984 - innovation which was later adopted by Microsoft in Excel on multiple occasions. And I suppose obscure is in the eye of the beholder (Smart, Wingz and Formula One have generated hundreds of millions of dollars in sales). Ask Bill Gates what he remembers about these products, particularly Wingz. Kind Regards, Joe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.95.61 (talk • contribs)
I disagree with your assertion that "none of the other ... calculation engines ... implement (array formulas' quirks)". My company's product certainly does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.83.235 (talk • contribs)
And the name of your company is...? Ralphy 09:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello there. I'd support removing the entire list of Gurus. If they're people who were important in the development of Excel, they ought to be mentioned and linked from the History section. If they were not, they ought not to be mentioned at all. This is an article about Microsoft Excel, not a directory nor an advertisement. For similar reasons, I'd also advocate removing the list of APIs and Tools in accordance with Wikipedia's style guide on external links (see "Links to normally avoid ... Sites that primarily exist to sell products or services"). Thoughts?? Crebbin 18:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Please go and browse sites listed in the guru section. There is a huge amount of useful and freely available information on these pages. These people really know Excel, they help others in public forums, they write about Excel, they literally live Excel. If your reason to drop them is that you don't know who they are, well in your words, you ought not to be editing this section at all. B-bye! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.80 (talk • contribs)
Eeeeeaasy there big fella. Merely voicing my opinion on the proper content of an article in its talk page. Es incorrecto?
I have had a look at the external links and agree that some (alright, maybe most) of them do provide free information/tools that may be of use to readers of the article. On the other hand, they remain generally commercial sites that exist for the purpose of selling stuff. Hmm. OK what if we keep the links to useful resources, but under the name "Useful Resources" or somesuch, and purge the links to purely commercial sites - ActiveXLS, Add-in Express etc etc? Crebbin 07:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Excel history

I just read a Swedish article interviewing Microsoft Sweden's marketing officer about Excel 2007. There was a question about its history, and he said this (translated from Swedish):

How long has Excel existed?
The first version was released in 1985 and was then called Spread sheet, and made for the Macintosh. Behind the program was Dan Bricklin and Bob Frankston, who studied at MIT. Later, Microsoft took over development.

There was no references to these people in this article, and that the application was originally called "Spread sheet". I'm not sure if he's correct on this and how that would related to VisiCalc (?), and will just comment it here if this can be verified for later inclusion in the article. Here's the source, but it's in Swedish. -- Jugalator 14:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Jugalator, your source appears to be very, very confused: http://dssresources.com/history/sshistory.html. More info: http://www.j-walk.com/ss/history/index.htm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.3.180 (talk • contribs)


Article title

Shouldn't the title of this article be Microsoft Excel? I don't know of a product named Microsoft Office Excel. True, Excel is a part of Microsoft office. Besides iTunes isn't at iLife iTunes, its just titled iTunes. Cliffb 01:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

While most people do refer to it as Microsoft Excel, Microsoft included, officially it is Microsoft Office Excel. This is proven by the Start Menu shortcuts and when you go to About Microsoft Office Excel. Even though in the title bar it uses the shorthand version, this is to save space. Both terms are in common usage but officially it is Microsoft Office Excel and this is what should be used in the article title and then opening sentence. Harryboyles 08:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, that is not true on the Mac. There, the product is simply Microsoft Excel. It sounds like Cliffb is using a Mac. The intro paragraph as it stands now is confusing for us Mac users. -- Steven Fisher 15:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that having separate articles for the Mac versions of Office software makes the most sense. We really do shortchange these products in terms of providing a clear description of them, and it's only going to become more pronounced in the years to come as future versions of Office come out. This would require a fair bit of work though... maybe someday. :-) Warrens 18:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy is to keep articles at the most common name, regardless of whether it is correct. (eg. Czech Republic (not Czechia), East Timor (not Timor-Leste), and Vietnam (not Viet Nam)). If no-one objects, I intend to move the pages back. +Hexagon1 (t) 10:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
File:Excel.JPG
This article talks mostly about the Windows version. Hence, "Microsoft Office Excel" is the most relevant title. Microsoft did refer to excel as "Microsoft Excel" but that was uptil the Office XP version. Since then, its being called "Microsoft Office Excel". I am against renaming the correct title into an incorrect one. Though its still coloquially referred to as Excel, it is unofficial and all office documentation, as well as the installer and the start menu shortcuts refer it as "Microsoft Office Excel". Calling it differently from what MS does would not be proper, and may even classify as Original Research. And as for it being named differently for Mac, well, I would support a different article. And it is called "Microsoft Excel" or "Microsoft Excel for Mac" (or similar)? --soUmyaSch 12:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Read WP:NC. Specifically WP:NC(CN) Naming conventions clearly state we should keep this at the most common name. Not the technicaly correct one. And saying it classifies as Original Research is preposterous, read WP:OR. Wikipedia conventions in this case clearly side in the MS Excel side. +Hexagon1 (t) 12:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I did not say it is OR, though. I said it might be, because it is a name is used only by people outside the official reference (even though the roots might be from an official name, in the present scenario, it is a wrong usage). Saying that it was cooked up by some editor was not my intention, though. Sorry if it felt so. Btw, search "Microsoft Excel" and "Microsoft Office Excel" — the latter leads to the excel page as the first hit. Also, as I said, in the context of the Windows version, "Microsoft Excel" is wrong usage, even though, I admit, it is more popular. But then, if popularity is the case, then why not just "Excel". People are more likely to say "the graph was created in excel", or "just crunch in the data in excel to see how they relate", or "I use excel to maintain my expenses" and so on. Also Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows Media Player, Internet Explorer don't have "Microsoft" leading them?
Actually, Internet Explorer will officially become Windows Internet Explorer upon release. --Cumbiagermen 03:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Keeping "Microsoft Office Excel" is a better choice imo, as it does provide some disambiguation between win and mac versions. WP:NC(CN) clearly states Titles should be as simple as possible without being too general. "Microsoft Excel" gets too generic (it refers to versions for all platforms for which excel ever existed) considering this article deals mainly with the win version, which is "Microsoft Office Excel". So it should be retained like this and mac version references should be moved out into its own article. --soUmyaSch 13:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
That's foolish, why make different articles for the same programme on different platforms? Moving mac references outside this article would also be extrmely redundant, as it's essentialy exactly the same thing as the Windows version. This article sufficently covers MS Excel, windows or otherwise, and it should be located at the most common name. MS Excel is meant to refer to all versions of the programme, just like MS Windows does (it doesn't mysteriously leave out Windows 98, or 2000). MS Excel 3.0 (OS/2) and MS Excel 97 are the same programme, there are no problems with genralisation causing confusion. +Hexagon1 (t) 04:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


Incorrect

"The current version is Excel 11, also called Microsoft Office Excel 2003."

No, the current version is within "Office 2004 for the Mac". And no, this should refer to MS excel on both platforms. The choice to refer this article as the Windows version while clearly referring to the generic version is totally not a NPOV. With an installed user base of 14 - 18% of all desktops it's not sensible to cut out Macs (and no I've not got my figures wrong ... IUB is not the same as market share!)

Candy 13:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This isn't an NPOV problem; the entire history section is about the Windows version, and this is the case for one extremely simple reason: Nobody's taken the time to write a history for the Macintosh version. -/- Warren 15:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I have modified that phrase to be: "The current version for the Windows platform is Excel 11, also called Microsoft Office Excel 2003. The current version for the Mac OS X platform is Microsoft Excel 2004." I think this is factually correct and NPOV. Razvan Socol 04:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Excel Mobile

Should we add it? http://www.microsoft.com/windowsmobile/5/InstalledFeatures/excelmobile.mspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.4.197 (talk • contribs)

Yes, we should (however, I'm not sure if this should be in this article or in a separate one). We should also create an article about Office Mobile (it is referenced as a red link by the Windows Mobile article, which contains some brief information about Excel Mobile). The Pocket PC article states Excel Mobile was previously called Pocket Excel. Razvan Socol 06:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed many of the external links in this article. There's way too many links, far in excess of what Wikipedia:External links Wikipedia:Spam would like. Please try talking to me before you just put back all the links. We do not need a dozen links to tips and easter egg sites, let alone ones to competing software that interacts with the program or its file format. --Kevin_b_er 19:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

That was some good work. Well done. -- Steven Fisher 01:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Move?

Do you think this should be moved/renamed to Microsoft Office Excel? WBHoenig 22:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


A Picture, Please?

Just wondering if anyone can find anything and properly license it. Because I can't do the licensing or it'll get deleted for sure. Bettyfizzw 02:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Notable add-ons

Shouldn't tools like 'Analysis ToolKit' be mentioned?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Date the Versions of Excel via their suffixes or "save as"

I thought it may be useful if someone could document which versions of Excel came out with different suffixes. In other works, if it is saved as Excel 2.1, what version that would be. Maybe that's a bit much and too arcane, but it sounds like something a person could document and it would be of quasi-historical interest to us computer geeks. 167.206.211.125 17:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Peter L

Alternatives?

What are the best free alternatives to Excel, in terms of inter-operability (ability to send spreadsheets back and forth to Excel users)?-69.87.194.251 19:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Statistical flaws in Excel

What sort of a defence is "the relatively few users who would be affected by these flaws know of them"? How can Excel proponents possibly know this? The problem is that relatively inexperienced users will use the statistical functions and features of Excel without even realizing that they might be flawed. Not all users of statistics are trained statisticians. Even some power users of Excel might be unaware of this issue. DFH 18:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

The criticism section seems very light! Excel has a huge number of flaws which make it much much less usefull than it would otherwise be, especially for any serious mathematical/statistical use.

There has been no major improvement in the functionality of excel in the last 10+ years.

There are many longstanding bugs/annoying features which have never been fixed, some of which are listed below:

  • The way cells are updated means that it is quite possible to have a sheet with only a few thousand entries lock-up when a change is made.
  • There is an arbitrary (and very low) limit of 2^16 cells per column, and 255 rows. This limits the usefulness of excel for many mathematical/statistical purposes.
  • The latest version has less capability than older versions, when it comes to plotting a running average (now limited to 255 points, rather than the previous limit of several thousand points)
  • If a spreadsheet with several thousand data points is modifed a few times, it can grow to several hundred megabytes in size, despite no more data being added. Eventually it grows so slow that it can no longer be used.
  • If cells are deleted at the bottom of a table, the scrolling/graph ranging/etc are never updated, until the spreadsheet is closed/reopened.
  • In older versions, the scroll speed for dragging cells was much too fast to be useful. In new versions, it is much too slow for large ranges.
  • It uses a truly staggering amount of RAM, disk space and CPU time to manipulate a puny amount of data.
  • The graphs in excel have innumerable small quirks and irksome points which make them a pain to use for many tasks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pogsquog (talk • contribs) 10:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
If you have WP:RS for these, feel free to add them. Th row/column limit has been greatly increased in the newest version, so be sure this and other criticism is phrased in such a way as to make it clear whether or not it has been addressed by the developers. --Karnesky 15:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

1900

"Excel incorrectly assumes that 1900 is a leap year." Isn't 1900 a leap year? If you divide by 4, you get an even number, which shows that 1900 is a leap year. Also, if you add four years multiple times, you end up in 2004, which was a leap year. Explain how this fact is true. 71.123.133.74

See Leap year. Kuru talk 04:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Excel 2004.png

Image:Excel 2004.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Secret Game

Does anyone know how to acces the secret flight sim game in Excel 97?The juggreserection 16:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Start by pressing Ctrl+G. Then type in X97:L97 into the reference box. Then press tab. Then hold Ctrl+Shift down and click Chart Wizard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.56.150 (talk) 05:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Excel 2007 bug

Like i wrote in my comment when i edited. Underjack pointed out fdiv and f00f, the Excel bug however does not share the same magnitude as those two. At least not in my opinion, since this only affects one value, and the value is maintained correctly in the cell and is only displayed wrongly. I am inclined to agree that this does show a problem in the QA of Microsoft when they review their product, but that is not related to Excel per se. Cloud02 03:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The bug is obviously relevant to Excel--if it belongs in WP, it should be in this article. So: does it belong? Google News shows that this particular Excel bug has received a lot of media attention. It is probably noteworthy enough for inclusion in this article. I don't know if it warrants a separate section, a screen shot, etc.--it is excessive depth that isn't given to the other parts of the article. --Karnesky 04:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe the magnitude of the problem is on par with fdiv and f00f--tempered by the fact that it is software, and it's easier to get a different spreadsheet than a different processor. There are situations, despite MS's claiming it's display only, that the value can get passed on. Using the rounding function is one, saving the speadsheet to a csv file for use with another tool is another.Underjack 11:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The bug was fixed a while ago, why is it still here? Do we plan to document all bugs in all products? :) 131.107.0.73 07:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Excel97.PNG

Image:Excel97.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

run-time

Some clarification of what is meant by this might be helpful. Is it along the lines of statically linked? DOS/4GW? Or what exactly? --Belg4mit 21:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Summing it up

To dispense with Excel's numerous flaws, I'll reduce it to this:

Inside Excel, there is a cute, little spreadsheet, struggling to get out. Cheers Io (talk) 00:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I recently posted an article about the adCenter Add-in For Excel and it was suggested that it be merged into the Microsoft Excel page. I would disagree with that on the following grounds, the adCenter Add-in is ultimately a keyword research tool that uses Excel as a medium to distribute information (much like Wikipedia uses the Internet (or HTML, etc...) to publish content). While the adCenter Add-in was created by Microsoft, it is not a part of Excel in its default installation, but rather is an available add-in for search engine marketers interested in keyword research. What do you think? Jorie4 (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please rename Criticism section

In my experience "Criticism" sections are POV magnets, and in the end readers don't care who criticizes Excel, but what the actual shortcomings are. So perhaps it's better to rename the section to "Bugs", "Shortcomings", or something similar. This would also make the subsequent "Excel 2007 display issue" a natural subsection, which improves the structure of the article. Shinobu (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Lots of other articles have Criticisms sections, such as Windows Vista. peterl (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree with Shinobu. Take, for instance, the "criticism" about Excel incorrectly assuming 1900 was a leap year. Unless an outside, verifiable source has criticized Excel on this point, it should either be removed from the "Criticism" section, or the section should be renamed to "Shortcomings" or something similar. Thoughts? - Walkiped (T | C) 06:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Screenshot

I noticed the screenshot at the top has the black theme as opposed to the blue default(?) theme used in the screenshots in the articles on other parts of Microsoft Office apart from Outlook. Would it not be better if they all had the same theme? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.10.253.10 (talk) 14:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Excel hangs when accessing drop down file menu?

Every time I want to save a file from any program (word, excel, outlook etc) and I click on the drop list to go to a network drive, the program hangs for 15-20 minutes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sxm8007 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Dispute of Excel's history as part of Office (contradiction with Wikipedia article on Microsoft Office)

The Wikipedia article on Microsoft Office states that the first version of Office for Windows, in 1990, included Word, Excel, and PowerPoint. That squares with my recollection, and the fact is footnoted in the article.

However, the Wikipedia article on Excel (i.e., the present article) states the following in the fourth paragraph of the History section:

When first bundled into Microsoft Office in 1993, Microsoft Word and Microsoft PowerPoint had their GUIs redesigned for consistency with Excel,[citation needed] the killer app on the PC at the time.

I recommend this one-sentence paragraph for deletion. Not only is the claim contradicted by another Wikipedia article, but the second part of the sentence, concerning the alleged "killer app" status of Excel, is false (in my opinion) and in any event would require a citation.

70.17.98.241 (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Michael

picture for the mac version

The picture for the mac version, with the table obscuring the actual spreadsheet (which is what most people associate with excel) and data already filled in, should be removed and replaced with one that shows a blank, unobscured spreadsheet, just like the windows screenshot. JagunTalkContribs 01:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

File Format Specifications

Why am i being redicrected to "Microsoft Excel" when looking for "XLS file". Wouldnt it be good to have an article for each file extension alongside with a formal specification of the format ? --Krapovisci (talk) 13:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The format is a closed binary format, so there isn't really much to say. It has been reverse engineered, but that content is possibly too technical and could be regarded as "original research". If you look in Category:Computer file formats, pretty much all of these have some kind of open-specification. +mt 14:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks --Krapovisci (talk) 10:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

XML spreadsheet

The article says, of XML Spreadsheet: "The following example will be correctly opened by Excel if saved either as Book1.xml or Book1.xls:"

When I try to open the file as "Book1.xls", I get the warning:

"The file you are trying to open, 'Book1.xls', is in a different format than specified by the file extension. Verify that the file is not corrupted and is from a trusted source before opening the file. Do you want to open the file now?"

(Is this relevant? From simply reading the article, I was under the impression that both worked equally well. I think if you don't mind the warning, you can use any filename extension you want with Excel.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.72.2 (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

BashBrannigan deletion of figure

I agree that named variables are not adequately discussed in this article. I've added a figure directly related to VBA. I do not agree that the use of named variables is "not a significant feature" as in my experience Excel would be a shadow of itself without it, because it makes the spreadsheet logically transparent to a reader and easy to check for errors and easy to use with VBA. Brews ohare (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia is encyclopedic and not to act as a course in Excel. It may be appropriate to mention that Excel supports named ranges, UDFs or ad-ins such as Name Manger, but that is all. BashBrannigan (talk) 01:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Use of a user-defined function sq(x) in Microsoft Excel. The variables are identified in the Name Manager. The function sq is introduced using the Visual Basic editor supplied with Excel.

Bash: Your impression of what constitutes "encyclopedic" content and what should be excluded is not decisive, but a matter for discussion. Do you have any experience in using Excel?

My own experience, which includes creation of a great many spreadsheets for circuit design, is that the figure illustrates important features and that it aids understanding other portions of this article including the use of VBA that is the subject of the section where it was placed. The inclusion of a figure does not constitute a "course in Excel". What it does do is emphatically point out user-defined functions and named variables by means of a picture that will be noticed by readers that are not text oriented, but know a bit about spreadsheets. Inclusion of this figure (the only figure with actual content in the entire article) does not add materially to the length of the article, does increase its accessibility and does make the article more interesting.

I propose you revert your reversion. Brews ohare (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a bad graphic. It's unclear that we are looking at three interfaces. Name Manager is an add-in, which is not explained. Anyone unfamiliar with Excel would have no idea what the graphic was about and anyone who understood it, would not gain anything from it. There are other problems, but I'm short on time. BashBrannigan (talk) 04:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Are we talking about improving the graphic, discussing the features in more detail, or something else: like maybe it is all too much, so don't bother? I think the article should give a person a feel for what the spreadsheet does, & probably how it differs from other spreadsheets. Treating it as two tables of file extensions, a list of dates for marketing different versions, and a bunch of acronyms like OOXML is not even close. Brews ohare (talk) 05:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I am unsure what point you are trying to make by calling Name Manager an add-in. It is not an optional feature, or an extra, but is included on the standard toolbar provided with Excel, so I'd call it part of Excel, wouldn't you? Brews ohare (talk) 05:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the spreadsheet in many Excel applications is invisible, and I find myself thinking of the spreadsheet as primarily a window to interface with the VBA code I am writing, and do not think of the VBA as a way to manipulate the spreadsheet. In other words, Excel has transcended the spreadsheet, and now it is only historical accident to call it a "spreadsheet". Brews ohare (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I have modified the figure to meet your objections and reintroduced it. Brews ohare (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You're correct. Name manager was a plug-in with Excel 2003 and before, but I've noticed it is now included standard as part of Excel 2007. I still have problems with the graphic, but I'm not going to fight over it. BashBrannigan (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

More expository approach

I've re-ordered the sections, written a brief introductory section Basic operation, and added a number of sources. The goal was to provide some orientation for the reader as to just what Excel is, and some ideas about how it is used, without going into the depth of the various handbooks that now are referenced. I expanded the VBA section and added to the section on Charts. This reorganization IMO avoids the previous appearance as a listing of details without connection to each other, which really didn't do much to introduce the reader to Excel. Obviously, more could be done. Brews ohare (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Concerns over Software Error section title

Does anyone else have concerns over the name "Software Errors" for the section. "Software errors" implies bugs in Excel and I think that's misleading. Some of these are more limitations in Excel and spreadsheets. The title implies errors in coding, which I think is very unfair. "Software issues" or "limitations" might be more accurate.. Any opinions? BashBrannigan (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to add, I'd been concerned about this question before, but the article was such a mess, it was a minor issue. However, editor Brews ohare has done some work cleaning the article up and this issue now seems more of a concern. The article's messiness served to cover up these problems. BashBrannigan (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. David Biddulph (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The description as a software error appears accurate for some of the complaints by statistics users, who point out clear mishandling of these functions over a period of decades despite continued advertisement of the problems. For example, see de Levie. Other issues in this section are just quirks. So I renamed the section "Quirks". Brews ohare (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy

Error in calculating 1 + x - 1 in Excel, where x is a binary number of the form x = 2-p(1 +2 +22 + ⋯ + 210). A jump in error occurs when truncation makes the sum simply 1 and the error simply x.

The accuracy of Excel is an unending source of debate on the web. People are understandably concerned that adding and subtracting numbers in different orders gives different results.

I've provided links to the ‘unofficial’ and ‘official’ Microsoft answers. The trouble tracks back to the conversion of all numbers to binary, and then back to decimal.

An added confusion, ignored in the Microsoft explanations, is that once the numbers are converted to binary, calculations are not done always with the resulting binary numbers, but some rules unknown to me are used to decide whether to round the binary up or down, or to leave it alone, and an approximate binary often is used.

Basically, it is impossible to tell what Excel will do except by using Excel. Fortunately, all this mess affects the last few sig figs only, and is a problem only when you are pushing the accuracy limits. Brews ohare (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I like the accuracy section, but a couple comments:
What are the real-world implications of the accuracy issue? I think the section would benefit from any examples.
The phrase “Excel works only to limited accuracy” implies that it should have unlimited accuracy. Is unlimited accuracy even possible with software representation of numbers? If not, then “limited” needs clarification and context. BashBrannigan (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bash: Thanks for the interest.

What are the real world implications. I come up with these: (i) The naive user seeing Excel display numbers (up to 30 decimals) is likely to think that (a) Excel actually uses the displayed numbers in its calculations (it doesn't) and (b) it is highly accurate (it's not; it's good at most to 15 sig figs). (ii) The naive user is likely to wonder why Excel gives different answers depending upon the order of adding and subtracting. The links to Microsoft explanations help a bit with this. The web traffic on this topic, and the fact that Microsoft finds need to provide explanations, indicates something should be said, and IMO more than what Microsoft tells us. (iii) The problems with the mathematical functions reported over and over again are partly due to ignoring these accuracy issues in coding the functions. (iv) If a user does wish to push the accuracy limits, a belief that it is just a 15 sig fig precision issue will lead you astray.

The examples given are 1+x-1 ≠ x. Can you suggest what other kinds of examples you'd like?


The phrase “Excel works only to limited accuracy” is preceded by "Like all spreadsheets". I don't think anyone expects anything more, and Excel is not being dinged here. However, it's just a way to open the discussion. Maybe you have some better ideas? Brews ohare (talk) 01:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I like the section, but it feels to me it is working in a too rarefied an atmosphere. I don't want you to dumb it down, but it cries out for one specific example. By "real world" I meant is there any business calculation where 15 sig fig is not sufficient? This is important since Excel is sold as a business application.BashBrannigan (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Bash: I get your point. The cases that seem most troublesome are related to statistics applications where long lists of numbers are manipulated and errors can accumulate. I'll see if some examples come my way; I'm taking a break from this topic just now. Brews ohare (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

NPOV Tag Excel 2007 Section

1/3 of the section is dedicated to criticizing the widely lauded new menu system without mentioning any of the praise it received or the fact that it's supposed to decrease the learning curve, etc. Seems like someone has an axe to grind.69.172.72.48 (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The stated added difficulties with formatting graphs and adding and labeling curves are accurate. The problems with the help system also are accurate. The only real plus in the new arrangement is the implementation of named variables which are more easily managed with the name manager than in earlier versions. This improvement is described at length. If it appears that this presentation is not neutral, I don't think vague claims of a shortened learning curve are any help to the reader, nor are they credible without more detailed support. Brews ohare (talk) 08:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy section issue

Does any have problems with the size of the Accuracy section? The section is the largest by far, practically dominating the article. However, Excel is primarily a business application and is marketed that way. How often, if ever, does that the fact that Excel is accurate only to 15 digits cause issues in business use? The fact that section is so large, conveys that this is a serious flaw, instead of a limitation. At the very least, it seems that there needs to be clarification if this has any impact at all in business. Opinions? 14:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it's overwhelmingly large and (in my opinion) only tangentially related to Excel. The fact that floating-point numbers can't accurately represent every possibly real is well-known in appropriate circles but isn't unique to MS Excel.
I think I'm going to be bold and simply cut the whole section out; others are welcome to create a new article based on the text and/or re-write it from scratch to be smaller and more obviously Excel-related. -- pne (talk) 12:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The accuracy issue is important to many applications, and if business users don't care about it, that's their business. :-) The amount of web traffic about Excel accuracy indicates it is a concern to many users.
There is no indication in the presentation that accuracy is a serous flaw in Excel: it is simply a description of what the accuracy is and why. All computation has accuracy limitations, and Excel is not singled out in that regard by an explanation of its particular limitations.
The peculiarities of using binary and decimal representations of numbers lead to most of the confusion about Excel accuracy. That is largely peculiar to Excel, is definitely proper in an article on Excel, and it cannot be handled briefly. Brews ohare (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Again, Excel is a business application and accuracy is important, but not 30-digit accuracy. The problem is that because of the size, it violates Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view: Wikipedia:Undue#Undue_weight. I'm aware the editor who contributed this has put in a good bit a work, but it is still improper. BashBrannigan (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy Section Undue Weight

An editor has added a section on the Accuracy of Microsoft Excel. Specifically, it deals with the fact that Excel is only accurate to 15 digits. The section takes up half the article. Excel is marketed by Microsoft as a business application. The 15-digit limit simply has no business implications and therefore violates policy on Undue Weight. I sympathize with the editor's effort, but it is hugely improper. BashBrannigan (talk) 21:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I definitely agree. The section has a lot of erroneous information that I do not think even a software developer would be interested in knowing. The fact that Excel will only be accurate up to fifteen digits is important, but it probably only needs a sentence mention, not an entire section. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 02:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
If you read the subsection, you would learn that Excel is not "accurate up to 15 digits" and learn that this is a very poor description of the accuracy issues. That is why discussion is necessary and is more involved.
There is no "erroneous" information in this subsection. If such derogatory remarks are to be made, let's see something concrete, eh, some substantiation?
Even within "business applications", as the acres of Excel books in Borders and Barnes & Noble attest, using Excel is a deeper and more sophisticated subject than you seem to imagine. And anyway, why should a WP article be fitted to serve a Microsoft sales niche? Must WP beat their drum? There are tons of engineering and scientific applications as well. Brews ohare (talk) 02:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, wow. I apologize about that, I totally misused the word "erroneous" (not everybody can be perfect with vocabulary). Trivial would be a better description. First of all, please explain how I am misreading the section, because it states quite clearly how Excel can only handle fifteen significant figures. Anyway, I do not see how anybody would be even remotely interested in the inaccuracies mentioned in the article. If a scientist were using Excel (I used this situation for accuracy purposes since scientific applications generally require a higher degree of accuracy and precision), for example, to statistically analyze some dataset of experimental durations, the results would off by less than a picosecond, which is ridiculously small. I do not see any applications, between business, science, personal usage, etc., where an accuracy of even ten significant figures is necessary, let alone the thirteen where errors start to occur. I will admit there are some inaccuracies worth mentioning, such as the standard deviation example, but the rest is just garbage and useless. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 03:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Parent5446: I don't understand why the examples in the subsection do not clearly demonstrate why "15 figure accuracy" is (i) not what is going on here, and (ii) that there are many circumstances where results are quite inaccurate despite many-figure precision. If you need explanation beyond what is said in the subsection, please advise. Maybe the subsection should be longer :-) Brews ohare (talk) 05:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Although (at the time I'm writing this comment) the "accuracy" section does not actually take up half the article, I would agree that it's applying far too much weight to an issue that would be of little or no interest to most readers. I think there is definitely a subset of Wikipedia readers (and Excel users) for whom 15-digit accuracy is a pressing issue, but they are not a large proportion.
However, in other respects I think the section on accuracy is pretty good - it's readable, it's referenced, it's even got a diagram, and so on. After skim-reading I see no reason to believe that it's factually incorrect. So, I would suggest splitting it off into a separate article (ie. "Accuracy and rounding in Microsoft Excel") whilst leaving just a paragraph in a "Microsoft Excel" parent article, with a link of course. Would this be an acceptable compromise? I think it would allow the overall weight of the Excel article to be balanced out, but Wikipedia would still have more detailed coverage of the accuracy issue for those who are interested in it; and if anybody wants more detailed discussion in the "child" article, they can fill their boots.
Does that sound reasonable? Comments / criticisms / complaints? (I came here as an uninvolved editor, responding to the RfC) bobrayner (talk) 11:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Great idea. I did it. Brews ohare (talk) 14:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC) That has several advantages: it focuses any further comment on the Accuracy page upon its content; it leaves those that don't want to hear about it free to ignore it, and there are no more objections based upon the preponderance of Microsoft business users in the WP community. Brews ohare (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC) This reorganization has the benefit that the accuracy issues are summarized, so the casual reader gets the points and doesn't just skip the section as being too detailed. Brews ohare (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I like the split off idea as well. The information seems unimportant in the context of the rest of the Excel article, but as its own topic, that's something different entirely. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 16:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I came over here from the RFC page, but it seems that consensus has been reached so I've removed the RFC tag. -- Scray (talk) 06:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Documents with the same name

Many of you will be familiar with the Excel quirk: "A document with the name '%s' is already open. You cannot open two documents with the same name, even if the documents are in different folders. To open the second document, either close the document that is currently open, or rename one of the documents." I hope to find sources and add details into the article.

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

--Hm2k (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be non-encyclopedic, but I won't revert without consensus. -- Scray (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Can you explain what makes it non-encyclopedic? --Hm2k (talk) 08:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
In the spirit of WP:NOTMANUAL, the behavior regarding opening two documents of the same name seems more like an owner's manual than an encyclopedia. If the details of this behavior were to change in version x.1 of Excel, the program itself would not be fundamentally changed but we'd need to update this section of the WP article. I see little value in it. -- Scray (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I fail to see how WP:NOTMANUAL applies, there are no instructions here. This is a notable fact about Excels quirks with references to support it. Simply saying it has no value (or no good) to you isn't enough to justify content removal. --Hm2k (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough - I have expressed my opinion. -- Scray (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Scray. Every major program has many quirks (that are well-documented with many references); Wikipedia can't possibly list them all. This is getting into WP:NOT#FAQ and WP:NOTSTATS. Also, the way it's written (using the second tense) is also unencyclopedic. Shubinator (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The section containing the information on 15 - digit accuracy has an example that is in itself inaccurate. 1/900 does not give 0.0001 but 0.001. Kindly make a change to the information provided there. Thanks - Ken —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.58.52.1 (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hugely degraded performance & interface

This article omits an incredibly important issue with Excel 2007/2010, namely a factor of ~10-20 degradation in the computational performance compared to Excel 2003, which limits many applications. This problem makes the newer versions vastly less useful for many purposes. I don't have time to edit the article or supply the references, but this problem is extremely well known. Also, the "new" ribbon interface markedly degrades the ease of use, especially for charting (well-known charting experts have discussed this issue at length). It takes many more clicks now to accomplish the same things that used to be much more efficient, and the creation of poorly labeled plots (missing axis labels, etc.) is now encouraged rather than discouraged. I make these comments as someone who has used Excel extensively in research projects and who regularly teaches its use to engineering students. I hope someone will add appropriate content to the article! Enginerd201 (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

2003?

Someone should also add bits about Excel 2003... There's mention of 2000, 2007, 2010, etc.... but nothing to cover stuff about 2003 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.223.124 (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

+1 --84.14.207.61 (talk) 13:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Newer preview image

Could someone update the preview image for Excel 2013? The newest version includes new and improved templates that are shown in that screen. Also, if you are going to show 2013 in the preview, could you use 2013's icon above the preview image?

173.68.131.149 (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Updating 2010 icon to 2013 icon

File:Microsoft-Excel-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-Excel-2013-Icon.svg
Zywxn |  06:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

"Replaced Lotus 1-2-3 as the industry standard for spreadsheets"

I sincerely doubt that either of these products were ever used in a serious workplace to produce a serious large-scale spreadsheet. Something small-scale that you need to edit easily, sure, but that's ultimately all Excel's good for in the realm of spreadsheeting. Cite that statement or get rid of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.92.1.32 (talk) 02:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I personally used a set of SuperCalc spreadsheets for the accounts of a large listed company. It took me two weeks every month just to enter the data: that is why monthly accounts were only done every month. Before that, the spreadsheets were done on broadsheet size pieces of paper. You don't think that serious large-scale spreadsheets existed before the invention of personal computers? Perhaps you don't think that serious large-scale companies existed before the existence of Excel... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.162.148 (talk) 07:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

XLS file format

I'm not a bigot on the issue of language drift, but if you want to change the article to use terms not found in the references, it is up to you to provide new references for the terms you use.

If you want to revert changes to the article so that the article no longer matches the references, you need to explain yourself better than just calling the corrections 'unexplained'.203.206.162.148 (talk) 06:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Quirks Section

I think the "Quirks" section could use some review, and perhaps should be removed. I have been using Excel about 8 hours per day since it came out, and I have not experienced most of the problems that are described here. While there are some functions that don't operate quite as a user might expect, the problem is usually with the users' understanding of statistics or the users' understanding of the Help system's explanation. Specifically, I never seen missing data as mishandled -- the user just needs to know the difference between missing, blank, and empty. The modulus function has never been a problem for me -- ever, and it is possible to have several different files operating in Excel windows, and to use them simultaneously. It is never a good idea to try to open any file more than once without protections for having a file overwritten two different sources. Statguy1 (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Unilateral indefinite semi-protecton.

Could we have a discussion about the indefinite semi-protecton, before doing it? I don't think this page needs indefinite semi protection, yeah, it is the second most vandalised page on my watchlist, but only about %80 of the edits are vandalsim not helpful and about half of those are in bad faith. Just my 2 cents.CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, CW. I myself was thinking that the protection is perhaps not justified, but with all the stats the you gave, I'm going for full support. If the edit requests increased in the future, we will think of something.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I protected the article as a result of a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism about persistent spamming. Naturally, if consensus is against the protection then it can be removed. Since CombatWombat42 quotes a figure for amount of editing that is "not helpful", I checked the last 50 edits made before I protected the article. Of those 50, 42 (84%) were unambiguously vandalism, spam, or reverting of vandalism or spam (much more of it being vandalism than spam). Of the remaining 8 edits, two were by autoconfirmed editors, and so would not be affected by semi protection, two were a questionable unsourced edit and an immediate revert of that edit, two were an edit that duplicated information that was already provided in the article and an immediate revert of that edit. That leaves the following two edits that might be reasonably regarded as constructive: [3]] and [4]. Of these, the first is clearly constructive but trivial, while the second is not obviously either an improvement or detrimental. If to the 84% of editing which, as I have already said, is spam/vandalism/reverting of the same, we add the other 4 edits (8%) that were not spam or vandalism, but still unconstructive edits and immediate reverts, we have a total of 92% that is unconstructive editing and reverting of it, and 4% that is either constructive (but trivial) or neutral (i.e neither significantly harmful nor significantly beneficial) editing by non-autoconfiirmed editors, the rest being constructive edits by autoconfirmed editors, and therefore irrelevant. If there is consensus that it is worth tolerating the 92% of wasted edits in order to save the 4% of possibly marginally beneficial edits, then I shall be happy to remove the semi-protection. Although I have only counted exact figures for the last 50 edits, a check of the editing history shows that the picture has been broadly similar for years, and semi-protection for a limited period was followed by a return to the same pattern when the protection ended. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Not sufficiently neutral

To whom this may concern

I have not the time to study this page on Microsoft Excel in detail, but my first impression is that this page is written in a somewhat biased manner. Authors seem to think foremost only of the windows platform or their company views or overemphasise some fancy features which give the impression of being an advertisement. First on bias: One example illustrating this is the fact that Excel was invented on the Macintosh and its invention had much to do with the WYSIWYG philosophy, which was promoted early 80es by new companies such as Apple, but which was not taken seriously by the business world then. That Excel was invented this early has probably greatly helped not only the Macintosh platform to gain acceptance in the business world, but has also altered the views in the business world on the value of WYSIWYG. BTW, this may have contributed not insignificantly to the development of Windows, which gained momentum only many years later. Second, the entry lacks also relevant information. E.g. I find no really clear explanation of the basics of a spreadsheet (or then at least a link to such a page) or some of the most important facts on Excel clearly compiled (cf. information as provided at http://office.microsoft.com/en-001/excel-help/excel-specifications-and-limits-HP005199291.aspx or http://office.microsoft.com/en-001/excel-help/excel-specifications-and-limits-HP010073849.aspx. Similarly the historical understanding of Excel seems also to be rather weak, e.g. the role of the really early Visicalc on Apple II (which later became Lotus 1-2-3) is also lacking. These are just some examples demonstrating what I mean by biased and important gaps. Notably the biases seem to me not appropriate for Wikipedia. I believe this article needs a careful overhaul from a neutral perspective.

Sincerely yours,
Andreas Fischlin
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.63.152.2 (talk) 08:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

  • "Spreadsheet" is Wikilinked as the fourth word of the article. Impact of Excel on GUIs in noted in the "Impact" section. I have just now added a Wikilink to "Comparison of spreadsheet software" Michaelmalak (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Hello, Andreas.
First, Wikipedia categorically forbids its editors from giving equal validity to all points of view on one matter. The truth is that Excel mainly concerns itself with Windows; its roots in Mac as well as its development on that platform has been very feeble. Wikipedia policies are all but nostalgic, and value the momentum that you say came years later.
Second, the basics of the spreadsheet of which you speak are deliberately omitted in accordance to Wikipedia:Summary style guideline. A {{Main}} tag guides editors to Spreadsheet article where they can obtain this info. The specifications that you say are missing are in fact in § "Data Storage and Communication".
Overall, I dare say that as you say, you indeed have not study this article carefully. We need expansion, additions and cleanup but an overhaul is not required.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Platform list

The platform list needs to be updated to reflect the release of Excel on Android (available in the play store) for both Tablet and Phone devices. There is also a version on Windows Phone, though it is called Microsoft Excel Mobile, and there is also the cloud-based version as part of Office 365.

The current page lists "Microsoft Excel is a spreadsheet application developed by Microsoft for Microsoft Windows, Mac OS X, and iOS." which could be changed to "Microsoft Excel is a spreadsheet application developed by Microsoft and currently released for Microsoft Windows, Mac OS X, iOS, Android, and web platforms." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.168.251.101 (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2015

182.186.105.35 (talk) 05:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 09:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Ridiculously wrong and out of date

The lede is in serious need of a do-over. First a "spreadsheet" is NOT a computer program. I have a variety of spreadsheets, some of which I filled in by hand, most of which were printed from a spreadsheet program. Just like Word or Wordperfect is not a "book", Excel is not a spreadsheet. I shouldn't have to waste my time explaining this, except it seems one or more editors are incapable of rational thought. I note that it appears that the same editors wrote the "Spreadsheet" article, since it makes the same claim - that a spreadsheet is computer program. The truth is that the term can mean a physical representation of data in row/column/cell format or the group of programs elements (code) capable of creating and displaying such a document. Document. Please try to wrap your minds around that. Second, Lotus123? Really? Risible. It has NO place in the lede. It is irrelevant. It's last release was 14 years ago. I doubt that it can run on one computer in 20.I dout if one person in 1000 has ever run across it. I lived through the Visicalc → Lotus123 → Excel years. I can tell you that the MOST notable thing about Excel's history (imho) is NOT that it replaced Lotus, (which was inevitable, given LOTUS's poor integration of its printing, graphing, and screen display modules (123 didn't add up very well)) but that it was a MAJOR reason that Windows (ever heard of a company called Microsoft?) was intalled on PC's in that era. Windows was, at that time, a program you ran (on DOS) which allowed Excel to run, a so-called "environment" for it. This was before Windows 3. Anyway, imho, the lede is worthless. It fails to explain what Excel is, points to an article (Spreadsheet) that is just as poorly written and as factually inaccurate, and fails to give any relevant information about its history, and possibly worse, its current implementations. Android anyone? Excel is now a family of programs. Some people's ONLY experience with it is as a data imput program and some users have never seen data displayed in columns/rows. Some people use it as a database, I'd BET that MOST users use its database features extensively (looking up data, filtering data) and the word "database" doesn't even occur in the lede. (Nor does "data presentation as graphs, charts and other diagrams". But pivot table does?? Wow. Risible.173.189.77.81 (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi
First, the realm of language is not governed by logic or science. (But linguistics is.) It is governed by people who use it. Ridiculous or not, "spreadsheet" means:

a type of software that offers the user a visual display of a simulated multicolumn worksheet and the means of using it especially for financial plans and budgets.

— Random House Dictionary, 2015

a computer program that allows easy entry and manipulation of figures, equations, and text, used esp for financial planning and budgeting

— Collins English Dictionary

A type of application program which manipulates numerical and string data in rows and columns of cells.

— Foldoc
Second, according to WP:LEDE, anything discussed in the body of the article must be summarized in the lead. So, yes, Lotus 1-2-3 must appear in the lead.
That's for now. We can discuss the rest later.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 09:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2016

118.102.153.1 (talk) 04:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC) CAN BE USED IN TABULAR FORM

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — Andy W. (talk) 05:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2016

"Versions of Excel up to 7.0 had a limitation in the size of their data sets of 16K (214 = 16384) rows. Versions 8.0 through 11.0 could handle 64K (216 = 65536) rows and 256 columns (28 as label 'IV'). Version 12.0 can handle 1M (220 = 1048576) rows, and 16384 (214 as label 'XFD') columns.[22]"

Please add commas (e.g. 65536 becomes 65,536) to the various numbers listed above.

208.95.51.72 (talk) 20:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Done with a tweak per MOS:DIGITS. (used {{val}}) — Andy W. (talk) 00:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Date problem

Hi.

I have checked a couple of contributions by Patrick. It seems the contributions fail verification against the cited sources. For example, Support Article 182247 has nothing about 0 January 1900.

Also, this is redundant:

Entering text that happens to be in a form that is interpreted as a date, the text can be unintentionally changed to a standard date format, thus changing the exact text.

It is said a couple of sentences later.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2017

The text:

Fictional leap day in the year 1900 Excel includes February 29, 1900, incorrectly treating 1900 as a leap year, even though e.g. 2100 is correctly treated as a regular year.[55][56] The bug originated from Lotus 1-2-3 (deliberated implemented to save computer memory), and was also purposely implemented in Excel, for the purpose of bug compatibility.[57] This legacy has later been carried over into Office Open XML file format.[58]

Should be changed to:

Fictional leap day in the year 1900 Excel includes February 29, 1900, incorrectly treating 1900 as a leap year, even though e.g. 2100 is correctly treated as a regular year.[55][56] The bug originated in Lotus 1-2-3 (where it was deliberately implemented to save computer memory) and, for the purpose of bug compatibility, it was also purposely implemented in Excel.[57] This legacy has later been carried over into Office Open XML file format.[58] 130.126.255.62 (talk) 13:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Done Thank-you for pointing that out! regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 14:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

UTF

The article completely ignores the character types that files are stored in eg ASCII, UTF-8, UTF-16. As some software can only cope with limited character types, this information is important to know what files can be used where. Could someone in the know add the missing information? Thanks. FreeFlow99 (talk) 09:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Was Quatro First with Pretty Spreadsheets?

This article states text formating by spreadsheets was first performed by Excel. I remember using Borland's Quatro spreadsheet program in the late 80's. It had the ability to format text etc. I used Quatro to create overheads for presentations because it had better looking fonts than the word processors of the day and allowed the use of bit map graphics. In my opinion, the Windows OS was such a kluge that it was unuseable in the 1980's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.12.121.188 (talk • contribs)

Spreadsheets from Visicalc and 1-2-3 onwards have had the ability to "format" text, within the limitations of their computer platform at the time. For a long time this was as limited as left, right or centre aligning things, then maybe bolding. It wasn't until GUIs appeared with the Mac and Windows 3 that we started to see font controls (size and typeface) as we'd see them today. (not sure how much Windows 1 & 2 offered, although they were mostly used as hosts for Excel). Windows never really took off, except for that cohort of Excel users, until Windows 3 around 1990. I used Quattro a lot myself, as a 1-2-3 replacement and because we were Borland Pascal (and Paradox) developers. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Microsoft Excel Viewer

I looked into Viewer and it hasn't been updated since 2008. Does anybody have any idea if Microsoft has announced that they have cancelled it, planned on bringing it back, or have cancelled it completely? Side note; is it also compatible with 2016? Thanks.Radnompieceofgarbage (talk) 10:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Radnompieceofgarbage
Announcing stuff costs time and money. Microsoft wouldn't do it unless there is some sort of benefit in it, e.g. stopping an angry horde enthusiasts from emailing Bill Gates. But currently, Microsoft recommends the Excel app and Office.com as the free viewer-only products. Also, if my memory is correct, the trial version of Excel become a viewer-only product at the end of the trial period.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2018

Change the sentence (including hyperlink) from "PHPExcel is a PHP library that converts Excel5, Excel 2003, and Excel 2007 formats into objects for reading and writing within a web application." to "PhpSpreadsheet is a PHP library that converts Excel5, Excel 2003, and Excel 2007 formats into objects for reading and writing within a web application."


Under the heading of "Export and migration of spreadsheets" there is a sentence with an external link to a PHP library called "PHPExcel" stating ". The link goes to a Codeplex pagethat advises that the site is shutting down; therefore this will soon become a dead link.

Furthermore, the PHPExcel library has been deprecated and replaced with a library called "PhpSpreadsheet" which is available on Github at https://github.com/PHPOffice/PhpSpreadsheet. Veloace (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The GitHub documentation does not say that PHPExcel is deprecated or give any reason for why it should be removed in favor of PhpSpreadsheet. A reliable source that supports this change is needed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Microsoft Excel. 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:

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) 10:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Trivia removed from lead paragraph, feel free to rescue it, if notable

Trivia does not belong in the lead paragraph. I put it on the talk page for now. This was removed from the article, by me (Redlink not mine):

In one Excel sheet are now 407 632x1 048 576 cells, so there are 427 428 937 728 cells. The last cell is named XFD1048576.

It was added in revision 835410531 by Awewewe (talk) With the edit comment: added information about cells number. And removed in an almost subsequent edit by me; •ː• 3ICE •ː• 14:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Excel for Android

Excel is listed for Windows, Macintosh and even OS/2, but the Android version is not yet listed.

It appears to be at version 16 at the moment

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.microsoft.office.excel&hl=en_US

Perhaps IOS as well?

Just a thought. Herb Riede (talk) 18:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2018

41.182.33.11 (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Ngyikp (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Excel functions

I have added a section, "Functions". This is in conjunction with having submitted a new article, List of Excel functions. The new article is intended to be linked from the new section as its "Main article".

The submitted article is my first complete article. I'd be interested in any comments or suggestions about it and about the new section intended to go along with it. I understand it could take some time for the article submission to be processed. Ennex2 (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

This is sitting in Draft for now. For those who are not editors on that article, please indicate whether this will be useful for Wikipedia or whether it is just Listcruft? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Status of the article is being discussed at Articles for Creation Help Desk.

.Ennex2 (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Excel quirks

I propose the following changes to the section on "Quirks":

  • The first paragraph starts out "Other errors ...", but the word "error" does not occur before that. Perhaps the word "Other" is intended to refer to the content of the article linked in the "further information" tag. To clarify, I propose removing that tag and starting the paragraph with "In addition to issues with spreadsheets in general, other errors ...".
  • The first paragraph ends with "the Excel 2007 error.[1]". The link is dead, but the page is preserved at Archive.org and referred to a bug that was corrected by a patch back in 2007. The rest of this section talks about extant problems, and it doesn't seem fitting to talk here about bugs that have been fixed. I propose removing that text and reference.
  • The subsection "Content type auto-detection" expands on the issue described in "Conversion problems". I propose merging those subsections.

Ennex2 (talk) 10:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Having not seen any objections to the above, I made the proposed changes, as well as:
* Moved the subsection Numeric precision to the beginning because it is the most important problem listed.
* Moved the subsection Filenames to the end because its issue is an inconvenience, whereas the other subsections refer to issues that cause erroneous results.
* Removed the link on "misleading statistics functions", which went to the subsection Statistical functions while there are no similar links to the other subsections referred to in the same sentence.

Ennex2 (talk) 14:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Fix of display error for a number from 65535.99999999995 to 65536

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2019

Change website URL from "office.microsoft.com/excel" to the canonical Microsoft URL of "https://products.office.com/en-us/excel" - office.microsoft.com no longer exists. Thank you. Davidwkelley (talk) 17:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Release dates appear to conflict

In the box on the right, the release date is 1987. Under "Early history", version 1 was released in '85.

Mikk0384 (talk) 04:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any conflict, as I see 1985 in the infobox for "Microsoft Excel for Mac", which was the first version. The version for Microsoft Windows was later, in 1987. +mt 19:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2020

Please remove these phrases: 

Since then Microsoft made the Excel binary format specification available to freely download.

It is also possible to open Excel files using certain online tools and services.[citation needed]Online excel viewers do not require users to have Microsoft Excel installed.

and add these: 

Microsoft has made the Excel binary format specification available for free download.

It is also possible to open Excel files using certain online tools and services.[citation needed] Online Excel viewers do not require users to have Microsoft Excel installed.

"Available for download" sounds more normal than "Available to download", and "then" doesn't work well with the previous sentences. In the second line, a space is needed at the end of the first sentence, and "Excel" should be capitalized. 

64.203.186.108 (talk) 12:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2020

There are two versions of the first version for windows, the first was a range limited version called "Excel working model" that shipped with Windows 2.0, that until Excel 3.0 came out, I got a lot of use from, but never upgraded to Excel 2.2 Range unlimited, because of my reliance on Lotus Rel 2.0.1 for dos, but everything from Excel Working Model worked on the range unlimited.

It was confirmed that the Excel Working Model disk contained Excel 2.1c, and the Excel 2.2 was the upgrade for it.

People are starting to use this version with Emulators, as it comes with the Windows 2.0/386 install. will get back here in a few days to crystalize the exact changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.75.140.124 (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

"Microsoft Excel had already been available for the Apple Macintosh for a couple of years already, and Lotus 1-2-3 was still the king of spreadsheets on DOS systems, so Microsoft was keen to promote Excel for Windows. The interesting point was that this wasn’t just a presentation showing a few slides on the benefits of using Excel, but a fully functional version albeit with only one major limitation. According to the Demonstration Guide booklet, the worksheets were limited to 16 rows and 64 columns, whereas the full version at the time had 256 rows and 16,384 columns. Apart from that you could still generate graphs, use the other functions, and print to a HP LaserJet or an Epson dot-matrix printer."

https://socket3.wordpress.com/2017/02/20/ebay-purchase-6-microsoft-windows386-2-11/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.75.140.124 (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Accuracy problem

As of 2020-11-24, Excel 365 online still has an accuracy problem. If you enter =1/3 in three successive cells and sum them you will get 1, but if you change the display to Currency, they will sum to 0.99. To the person who suggested that this will not affect financial calculations is mistaken.

In Microsoft Excel, when you print a worksheet, pages that are completely blank may be unexpectedly printed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.75.140.124 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

"a modified 1985 version"

"Excel works with a modified 1985 version of the IEEE 754 specification" is a misleading/false interpretation. Excel does not give you 'modified' results, and the results it gives are not due to a 'modification' of the standard. **When Excel gives a number, it is a 754-compliant number**.

As discussed in the linked document, Excel does not propagate infinities and Not-a-Number: it shows these as calculation failures.

This is not a modified implementation of the standard: it is an incomplete implementation of the standard using only the parts relevant for a spreadsheet.

Note that OpenOffice Calc has made the same choice: 

https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=27280&p=269455&hilit=infinity 

https://superuser.com/questions/593840/does-libreoffice-have-a-math-concept-like-infinity

and that even the gnu c library generates FP exceptions in the same place.

https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Infinity-and-NaN.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.200.27.15 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

"Microsoft® Excel®" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Microsoft® Excel® and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 15#Microsoft® Excel® until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BD2412 T 04:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2022

The exact release date for the Windows version is not shown in the infobox for it. The release date was November 19, 1987, according to: https://web.archive.org/web/20100927044515/http://channel9.msdn.com/series/history/the-history-of-microsoft-1987. 71.187.179.15 (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Distinguish between Workbook and Worksheet in Microsoft Excel.

Distinguish between Workbook and Worksheet in Microsoft Excel. 2405:204:1309:2702:606:EA0B:FB48:ACCB (talk) 07:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

The distinction is explained at Spreadsheet. It is not specific to Microsoft Excel. - David Biddulph (talk) 08:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2022

72.138.168.66 (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC) Unnecessary protection because they have been no vandalism there for a while

The place to request reduction in protection level is Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2022

change the link from Computer Virus#Macro viruses in Microsoft Excel#Excel 5.0 (1993) to the page Macro virus. There does not appear to be a Macro virus subsection anymore. KingCam16 (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Do we really need 4 infoboxes for each variant of the app? FusionSub (talk) 10:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Microsoft_Excel/Archive_1&oldid=1227398920"