Talk:Outlook.com/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

People and Calendar merger

I'm suggesting that we merge People (Microsoft service) and Calendar (Microsoft service) into this article, as they are integral parts of the service, and do not necessarily need separate articles. Calendar in particular comes with Outlook and is not separate in the same way that Google Calendar and Gmail are. I'm aware that with the forthcoming preview of Outlook.com, Calendar is named Outlook Calendar, reinforcing the link between them. People and Calendar's articles could be slimmed down and added to the features section in Outlook.com.

It's just an idea, so please don't panic, but what do people think? Cloudbound (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support. They suffer from notability issue anyway. Fleet Command (talk) 05:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Per nom. If Microsoft merged them into Outlook, why shouldn't we? Just saying. -- Chamith (talk) 06:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Sort of Outlook.com is becoming Outlook Mail, Calendar will become Outlook Calendar, People will become Outlook People, there will be Outlook Tasks and Outlook Groups. This is all still happening. I tried to move this to Outlook Mail but Codename Lisa opposed. WikIan -(talk) 19:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

That's still a forthcoming feature and name though. General consensus was that we'd wait for any full-scale rebrand before we renamed the article. However, Calendar and People are already tightly integrated into Outlook.com, and it looks like this will only get tighter. Cloudbound (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I opposed. Codename Lisa opposed. ViperSnake151 opposed. Cloudbound opposed. Actually, I believe it was I who reverted the majority of your changes. And I believe you should deny me the credit for that when it is due. Fleet Command (talk) 10:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm keeping this at support. FleetCommand :I question your true intent of participating in this discussion. To attack me, or to contribute the article. Who knows? WikIan -(talk) 23:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done As it's been over a week I've completed the merge. I summarised the Calendar and People content, and have only kept the current Calendar screenshot. Cloudbound (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I know this was completed, but there are future changes coming and Outlook Tasks is a new app they also exist under the Outlook brand, but as separate services Outlook Mail, Tasks, Calendar, Groups, and People. Maybe we should split this again once the upgrades are seen? Codename Lisa left a note on my talk page saying her account got updated recently. WikIan -(talk) 06:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@WikIan: My OneDrive is updated but not Outlook.com. One of the rules of thumb of Wikipedia is: "Worry about it when it happened".

@Codename Lisa: Please describe the nature of this upgrade. Does it warrant a split? Fleet Command (talk) 08:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Fleet Command. In short, it is new features added, and a slight interface change. You can read all about it in User talk:WikIan § Outlook.com upgrade. But we didn't discuss splitting. And I don't think splitting is even remotely worth contemplating. How many PIM apps you know that have separate articles about their email reading pane, address book and calendar? There is WP:N and WP:SIZERULE to consider too.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 12:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I think splitting must be considered as Outlook Mail is separate from Outlook People and Outlook Tasks and Outlook Calendar in terms of web apps, they are under the same Outlook brand as part of Outlook on the web which is both in O365/Exchange and Outlook.com. What I am saying is that Outlook Mail now exists as on Outlook.com and O365/Exchange so those articles should be combined to make an Outlook Mail article. Same with Calendar, People, Tasks, Groups.

BTW: I have just found an extremely useful post in the support forums about the changes that can be found here. WikIan -(talk) 23:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

In fact, Outlook.com can now be treated as a brand successor to Windows Live and we should have the article set up with that chart, it no longer refers to the Mail service only. It includes Cal, People, etc. because it is a "Outlook.com account". I think it could also be used to represent OneDrive: Notice how it says your Outlook.com inbox comes with ... OneDrive. However, Microsoft Account would be a better representation though? 23:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

---

Just to keep you all informed and keep the discussion going, I've also suggested Profile (Microsoft service) be merged into Microsoft account. I'd welcome your thoughts on this - the section is here: Talk:Microsoft account#Profile merger. Cloudbound (talk) 14:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Outlook.com is part of Outlook on the web with the latest Preview

@Codename Lisa:, look at this article again. Also take a look at what it says here. Which states "Sign in to Outlook on the web using any Microsoft account, including email accounts ending in @outlook.com, @live.com, @hotmail.com or @msn.com — and Office 365 work or student accounts." which states that in addition to O365 accounts, Outlook.com accounts sign into Outlook on the web.

CL, You are thinking Outlook on the web refers to just O365/Exchange Server's email/cal/people/tasks service, but it is a brand spanning across all Outlook services...on the web. WikIan -(talk) 05:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not dignifying this with an answer. I have answered it times and again before; read those. And remember: I do have an upgraded Outlook.com. I am not easily swayed by some blog whose author just assumes too much. —Codename Lisa (talk) 05:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Your Outlook.com claims are your own original research. It doesn't matter what you have or don't have. What matters is there are reliable sources out there that support my claims. This article does not have to run everything by you. What you are doing is borderline disruptive editing, as you see fit to your own circumstances. Nothing has to "qualify" to you and my edits are grounded in facts. WikIan -(talk) 06:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

What matters is there are reliable sources out there that support my claims. Then kindly show them; that is if you have managed to find any after so much time. —Codename Lisa (talk) 10:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm... how is the Microsoft announcement posts AND the help page for Outlook.com not reliable sources? I don't need to prove myself to you. You've got to prove why you think the Outlook Mail branding is not happening. Mind you, citing that you "don't see it" doesn't count. WikIan -(talk) 07:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello again. Missed me?

They don't support your claim. Not without assuming a lot. And remember: Speculation [...] even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content.

And the burden of proof is on the person who adds or reinstates a claim; so yes, you do need to prove yourself.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 09:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

"Hands on with the newly overhauled Outlook.com, or “Outlook on the web" states it as plain as possible and "Sign in to Outlook on the web using any Microsoft account, including email accounts ending in @outlook.com ... — and Office 365 work or student accounts." The help article states that a consumer Outlook.com account access Outlook on the web in ADDITION to Office 365 accounts. It clearly states it as plain as possible. WikIan -(talk) 17:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

It's still a preview, which is the problem. Let's just wait for the service to come out of the preview stage, regardless of who has the latest version at the moment. I suggested it before and I'll suggest it again, @WikIan: try a draft of how you'd like Outlook.com and Outlook on the web in your sandbox and we can all discuss it there. Cloudbound (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I am going to hold off drafting the page until the preview is over and the Ootw upgrade for Outlook.com has rolled out to everyone, that way there will be no dispute. WikIan -(talk) 06:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

In that case why are we all going back and forth here? Let's all just wait. Cloudbound (talk) 13:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The first part of your message is a one-million-dollar question I've been asking for monthes. The second part is the consensus on which we land each freaking time. Fleet Command (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Cloudbound (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

This article is confusing

Some of it refers to Outlook.com (the consumer facing Email,calendar,contacts, and tasks accounts) and half of it is on the mail component (soon to be Outlook Mail) with very little information on other components like Outlook Tasks, Outlook Calendar, Outlook People. This is why merging was not actually such a great idea WikIan -(talk) 05:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

With respect, you did (sort of) support the merger at the time. If you feel things can be done better, as I'm sure they can be, please go ahead. Cloudbound (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I can very well see that the article is not talking about your imaginary services, WikIan. WP:IDHT, son! What's up? Got tired of ruining Outlook on the web article? Fleet Command (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@FleetCommand: this blind ignorance is appalling; by evidence of your comment. imaginary services, apparently you disregard official Microsoft statements, images of the preview, news reports, and pretty much everything else. No, I didn't ruin the Outlook on the web article, in fact I haven't even changed anything in the infobox that you touched. WikIan -(talk) 07:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at these forum posts they clearly show that I did not make up the branding. WikIan -(talk) 07:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@WikIan: Why don't you make a draft in your sandbox of how you think the article should look, and we can discuss it from there? Cloudbound (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

apparently you disregard official Microsoft statements, images of the preview. Imaginary ones? No doubt. Real ones? Sure, those too, because they are WP:PRIMARY after all. We have WP:N, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:COMMONNAME too. But as for what is real: Codename Lisa says her account is upgraded. You say it too. But you two say different things. I believe her. At least she never branded me as "hater" and "blind ignorance". I still won't call you a liar but you assume too much, give wing to your imagination and brand those who don't see it as "appalling ignorant", hence your point of view is not neutral.

Take a look at these forum posts. So some self-published forum posts are now "official Microsoft statements, images of the preview"?

Fleet Command (talk) 09:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

No those forum posts are not reliable/WP:PRIMARY sources, so I NEVER cited them in the article. I don't care if CL says her account is upgraded or not. I have shown screenshots of the branding on my account. Codename Lisa doesn't even see the Outlook Mail branding and says her Outlook Tasks is part of calendar. On my old account that wasn't updated, yes the Tasks menu is see on OneDrive and points to task view on Calendar. This is not fully updated. The screenshots from Microsoft are fully updated. The screenshots from the press are fully updated.

Since you citing WP:COMMONNAME you are assuming I want to rename this article. That is not the case. Outlook.com is not going away, it is not changing to Ootw. It and its services are Ootw on the Office 365 infrastructure. You are really confused. Explain to me what you are thinking I'm thinking, please. WikIan -(talk) 04:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion regarding civility

@FleetCommand: Please try to remain civil. Thank you. Indrek (talk) 08:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC) @Indrek: I have a genuine concern about this user's point of view, and I certainly did not do this: [1]. If you have mistaken my concern for incivility, it is unfortunate, but all I can do is pleading reconsideration. Fleet Command (talk) 09:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC) With all due respect, such concerns can be expressed without rude and condescending remarks. Further, if those concerns are so grave, you should take them to an appropriate noticeboard like WP:ANI. As for WikIan's response, I did not see it at the time of posting mine, but yes, it too runs afoul of talk page etiquette. You should both perhaps take a step back and consider how to deal with your disagreements without getting personal. Indrek (talk) 10:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC) @Indrek: ANI is a place for requesting admin action. My concerns are grave but I do not advocate throwing my fellow Wikipedians out of Wikipedia just because they disagree with me. But a huge unending row is not the answer to failure to achieve consensus. Sometimes one must drop the stick. I have already struck a compromise with WikIan, promising to leave Outlook on the web article alone, even though its current layout is a ruin that shows no sign of a plan of any sort. Yes, I have been frank and straight with WikIan, which is a proportionate response to the severity and length of time of fault. If I did this to a newcomer with one or two edit, please feel free to call me condescending as you did. Fleet Command (talk) 11:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC) If you and WikIan have reached some sort of agreement, then that's great. I'll collapse this thread so it doesn't distract from the actual discussion. Indrek (talk) 11:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC) No. We haven't. He didn't exactly say he would honor his own end, and judging by this discussion, he hasn't. You see the way, he and I left that disussion, if it were you and Codename Lisa, you could probably expect her to hold her end. Evidently, I am not you and WikIan is not Codename Lisa. Fleet Command (talk) 11:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Merger

I fail to see why People (Microsoft service) and Calendar (Microsoft service) were so lousily merged with this article, they both are built into Windows Phone and Windows 10 and have their own separate services that are not completely dependent on Outlook.com, in fact I'd argue that the only thing they have in common is that they have Microsoft accounts that integrate with each other, as for notability there has been plenty of reporting on both articles independently and presently the introduction into these 2 services is very limited and only talks about their relation to Outlook.com and completely removes the history of these services. In fact merger proposals on both pages were met with absolutely no replies and @Cloudbound: on these respective articles. Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, my error, I saw that this was discussed above at talk:Outlook.com#People and Calendar merger never mind.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Just a thought for those interested: if it's felt that separate articles for People and Calendar on Windows are required, I suggest they are named People (Microsoft Windows) and Calendar (Microsoft Windows). Personally, I don't think they're necessary, but someone else might. Cloudbound (talk) 22:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Why not People (Windows) and Calendar (Windows)? Of course, we already have Windows Calendar and Microsoft Calendar redirects...

And I definitely oppose a split. Fleet Command (talk) 10:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

That works too. Cloudbound (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Outlook Mail vs Outlook.com

OK, so the update has been announced and Outlook Mail is a component of Outlook.com. This article currently has content that pertains to Outlook Mail rather than Outlook.com (for example the majority of the article is dealing with Hotmail and MSN mail). It is important to differentiate between Outlook.com which includes Calendar, Mail, Tasks, and People and Outlook Mail which includes Mail on O365, Mail on Outlook.com, and the Outlook Mail app. WikIan -(talk) 23:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Would you like to put together a draft of how you think the article should change now the preview stage has ended? Perhaps it would be worth considering splitting to create a historical Hotmail article again, without duplicating things? Cloudbound (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Now that the rollout has been confirmed, and when Microsoft has finished with the rollout, I will definitely create a draft. I don't necessarily mean to create a Hotmail page, but to move the detailed content on this page that only regards the Mail component to its own page, then expand the Calendar, Tasks, and People sections. WikIan -(talk) 03:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing your ideas. Cloudbound (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Signs of trouble: He said "...and Outlook Mail is a component of Outlook.com". The way I see it, the official name might change, but not the common name. We will see. I'm not looking forward to see the draft.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 14:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm more optimistic. I think it's a good idea if we discuss a draft and negotiate on a general direction than have a series of reverts. Cloudbound (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no denying the second sentence.

—Codename Lisa (talk) 13:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not denying any sentences. Let's just wait and see. Cloudbound (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

LOL, Cloudbound. The expression "There is no denying X" means "X is correct" or "I agree with X". In this case, "There is no denying the second sentence" means "I agree with the second sentence". Clarification: Your second sentence. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry, I know what you meant. It's just hard to add the right intonation and expression when communicating through text. Cloudbound (talk) 04:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)