Talk:Microsoft Visio

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Mid-importance).

Microsoft Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrosoftWikipedia:WikiProject MicrosoftTemplate:WikiProject MicrosoftMicrosoft articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Features in non-existent Premium edition

The Features section reads "Microsoft made Visio 2013 for Windows available in two editions: Standard and Professional" and then goes on to mention "Premium" in two places. Premium was offered in Visio 2010 (according to your Versions list) but not in Visio 2013 (again according to your list). Shouldn't "Premium" be changed to "Professional" in the Features section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericp-nh (talk • contribs) 19:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AHMartin (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC) Clarify section title[reply]

Pronunciation

Someone please clarify the pronunciation of "Visio," the page writes, "VIZ-ee-oo, not VIZH-ee-oo" which makes no sense. I'm assuming that this is to clarify that the first 'I' is pronounced as an /i/ in IPA, instead of its English short form. Biocrite (talk) 09:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image

The image on this page tells nothing about the function of Visio, or how it might appear in normal use. 72.224.125.143 23:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UML Tool property?

Would this propertly be categorized as a UML Tool? I can't seem to find how to save a file as UML from Visio...--198.62.72.2 16:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a UML template with some built in features to store data in the objects. It's not a file format per say, and not the focus of the application. Kuru ^talk 23:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from page

For IT and Business Professionals who need to quickly understand, act upon and share complex information about systems, resources and processes, Microsoft Office Visio 2007 is the diagramming program that offers an easy way to visualize, explore and communicate information.

Advertisment

The 3rd paragraph on this page sounds like an advertisment.

Unlike complicated text and tables, Visio diagrams can be easier for humans to understand. Unlike static pictures, Visio diagrams can import and store data, display it visually, and can be refreshed and reused.

This seems to imply that only Visio has these advantages, whereas most diagramming tools have these advantages. To name 3: OpenOffice.org Draw, Xfig and Dia. This paragraph would be all right if it as clearly marked as Microsofts tagline but it isn't. I notice already that one section has been removed from the article for more or less the same reaon.

Regards,
XTarget 13:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. User: nobody, 10th January 2007

I'd edit it myself but I don't know wether or not its an official tagline or not. XTarget 23:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The intention here appears to be an explanation of what diagramming software is. This could probably be rephrased by removing the word 'Visio' when explaining the concept. Gurupilgrim (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Logo

I noticed that that the Visio logo is in PNG but it appears the transparent color is not quite correct; though I'm not too sure. And it also has a template attached that says it could be stored better in a SVG format. Shouldn't a low resolution PNG suffice, since most Fair Use Rationales cover "Low-resolution" logos, instead of lossless, scalable logos? Danny Sepley 19:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Visio 5.0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Visio5.PNG I uploaded a pic of Visio 5.0... doesn't fit though. :( Colinstu 13:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Entity-Relationship-Models

Hallo,

are there any shapes available in Visio 2007 Prof. to create ERMs (I mean those by designed by P. Chen) to design a database. Shapes like relations, entity types, attributes, etc.? Thanks, Djoko —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.24.172.32 (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-free"?

Seriously? We are using the term "non-free" to describe commercial software on Wikipedia now? I can hear Bill O'Reilly starting his diatribe already... -Grammaticus Repairo (talk) 07:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? I have never seen "non-free software" in Wikipedia in my life! Where is it? Fleet Command (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OH! MY! GAWD! Look at the article! It says "Non-free" and links to "Free"!!! What a funny blunder ... I wonder who added this. Fixing it now.

Mind you, we do use the term "non-free contents" to refer to images that do not have The Four Freedom. But non-free software? Never saw before!

Fleet Command (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Free alternatives

Inkscape - free vector graphics multi-platform alternative
OpenOffice.org Draw
Dia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurupilgrim (talk • contribs) 20:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Electron9 (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are not concept-mapping or mind-mapping software. But if you want real free alternatives, see List of concept mapping and mind mapping software. Fleet Command (talk) 07:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be a good idea to include these on the main page? It could possibly be reworded to include Illustrator as a commercial alternative, although neither Illustrator or Inkscape are actually diagramming software, but more illustration software. We could at least include Draw and Dia though, and possibly mention the other two as more advanced alternatives. Any thoughts? Gurupilgrim (talk) 13:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it would be a very bad idea because it is a violation of at least a couple of Wikipedia guidelines. Generally speaking, advertising other software product in one product's article is not allowed. Readers willing to find alternatives can see List of concept mapping and mind mapping software or one of the categories. Fleet Command (talk) 02:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I notice however that there are no references to alternatives in the diagramming software category, when the lead identifies Visio as a diagramming program rather than concept mapping or mind mapping (which I think is accurate since Visio and it's alternatives can be used for a lot more than concept maps). I could see a reason for this being that there is a link in the lead to diagramming software and it is not necessary to include a link twice. I'm new to Wikipedia, so is it common to not include a link that has already been mentioned in the see also section? Gurupilgrim (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Common? That is not the least concern. If something is logical, then it is done, common or not. So, I added it. Fleet Command (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary

There is a link to the wiktionary entry of the word visio as a hatnote to this article. I removed it because it's stupid, but I was reverted. So I guess we have to talk about it here. The template in question (({{See Wiktionary}}) is used on pages "which have generic names and content that differs from the general meaning of their titles. Current examples include Ridicule (an article about a movie, not about mockery) and Visage (an article about a band, not about faces)". I dispute that this applies here: visio is not a word in English (other than as this product, in appears in zero English dictionaries). To borrow a phrase, it is "remarkably stupid" to suppose that anyone would search for the word "visio" on en wiki and be looking for a Finnish or Latin word meaning "vision". Given that the template is explicitly for articles whose content "differs from the general meaning of their titles", and it is absurd to suggest that the general meaning of "visio" in English is "a Finnish/Latin word for 'vision'", I once again move that that the template be eliminated. 68.54.4.162 (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think removing it was stupid. There's a Wiktionary entry for wikt:visio. Visio is currently a redirect to this article. If someone was looking up "visio" (which happened between 33 and 115 times each day in July 2011) they may have reached their actual goal (an article on Microsoft Visio software) or may have benefited from a link to a dictionary entry about the term in a sister project.

The content in question is neither intrusive in coding length nor page design and results in an inarguable increase in available information for the reader.

Beyond this, however, I know of a better solution. Visio can clearly be made into a disambiguation page for at leas these entries and the wiktionary link.

Since this seems to be a common sense solution, I'll go ahead and implement it.

— Scientizzle 19:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diagramming Capability

How does Visio differ from a general purpose 2D drawing tool like Inkscape? I think it maintains a "boxes connected by lines" model, such that if you move the boxes, the lines stay connected and arrowheads (if any) stop at the edge of the box. Anyway I'm looking for such a tool, and if Visio does this I think the wiki page ought to mention it. Jrvz (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My experience is that Visio is first and foremost suited for drawing schemes: mapping interior plans, database scheme (like ERD), UML, flow chart, timelines. It has no or little painting effects (brush type, shadowig, free line drawing) like Inkscape has. I don't know if & how this is sourced in documentation. It is difficult to get such differences from (commercial) documentation. -DePiep (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Company Name Change

The text formerly claimed that Shapeware changed its name to Visio Corp prior to the release of 1.0. This was definitely wrong. I've cited something based on a web article, that talks bout the name change being in 1995, but there's almost certainly a US Government website that provides an official tracking of company names. If someone could cite that as well / instead, it would be appreciated.

Are any more citations needed

With the adding of the 'company name change' stuff above, there are no longer any 'Citations needed' on the page. Should the 'Issues with this article' be updated to remove the need for citations, or are there other places where they are still needed that should be flagged up.

Information on 3rd party viewers

How can users not having access to view Microsoft Office software view such those files? I suggest to keep users objectively informed about other non-Microsoft options, and for that I propose to add a section to each major Microsoft Product wiki pages that has a space for people to suggest and provide information on such tools.

I had mentioned a tool following example of an already published wiki page on Microsoft Visio under File Formats. The change got reverted from Microsoft Visio, Microsoft Powerpoint, Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Word, and Microsoft Project under the suspicion of possible advertisement.

My impression is to lead the user to arrive at this information by including brief, but relevant choice from a list of 3rd party tools that allow viewing of such files. For most part, LibreOffice wiki links are put into Microsoft wiki pages and I would like to follow the same line of thought in providing additional information.

Visitsb (talk) 08:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

Your proposition of objectivity is fine and sound; only it is so difficult to accomplish that one suspects it is just a pretext or beautiful words. What you need to accomplish is proving due weight through independent sourcing. Anything short of that falls with the criteria of What Wikipedia is not, including the "no ads" criterion.

In the meantime, I endorse the removals. They were indeed not encyclopedia material.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 08:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that information on third party viewers would be helpful, but we need to be careful of at least two policies WP:NOTAD and WP:NOTHOWTO CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree mention of third-party viewers may be relevant, but we need 3rd-party independent sources about them. It seems that the editor Visitsb may have COI. peterl (talk)

@Codename Lisa, @CombatWombat42, @peterl - Thanks, these are quite sound reasons. In absence of independent sources, it undoubtedly evokes a firsthand doubt about conflict and should be prevented.

It is a good thing we all see the necessity to provide information to users about 3rd party viewers. How do we go about it?

It could be the case wherein such tools do not warrant a mention on similar product pages since it could be very well regarded as suggesting (promoting?) just popular, commercial/non-commercial alternatives against only that product.

Visitsb (talk) 01:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Actually I never said I see the necessity. In fact I don't see a necessity. All I am saying is if you are willing to go about it, independent sourcing is the way to go. You can create a new section about the file format, explain it, mention software that do open the file format and use independent sources to supply evidence. That's the way to go. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious contradiction.

Microsoft Visio (/ˈvɪzi.oʊ/ VIZ-zee-oh) (formerly Microsoft Office Visio) is a diagramming and vector graphics application and is part of the Microsoft Office suite.

Microsoft acquired Visio in 2000, re-branding it as a Microsoft Office application, like Microsoft Project; however, it has never been included in any of the Office suites.

These statements are clearly contradictory. Visio has either been included in Microsoft Office, or it has not. I don't know which is correct, or I would have fixed it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.61.144.180 (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed "Suite" became "family". "Brand" may also be used. Codename Lisa (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done Above fix seems to have been done in revision 840554365 but the "suite" term is now again used in the text and causing me confusion. According to current MS Office product description Visio is an Office application and has been in at least editions 2007, 2010, 2013. Seems like the "suite" term is used for the boxed bundles previously sold. Accordingly in revision 844830286 I've rephrased to "bundled Office suite" to decrease confusion between "Office application" and "Office suite". Kirkgaard (talk) 13:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Microsoft Visio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6HcPJMHLd?url=http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/visio-help/check-for-macros-that-might-contain-viruses-HP085052564.aspx to http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/visio-help/check-for-macros-that-might-contain-viruses-HP085052564.aspx
Corrected formatting/usage for http://visio.mvps.org/History.htm

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

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

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]