Talk:Comparison of word processor programs

This article was nominated for deletion on 27/4/2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

You must add a |reason= parameter to this Cleanup template – replace it with {{Cleanup|reason=<Fill reason here>}}, or remove the Cleanup template.

Tables/Comparison

I think that the following comparison tables should be included:

Characteristics (creator, first release, latest stable version, spellcheck, grammar check, image editing, cost, license... please list more)
Import File Type Compatibility (.odt, .doc, .abw... list more please)
Export File Type Compatibility (above)
Operating System Compatibility (Windows, Mac OSX, GNU/Linux, BSD, Unix, Open VMS, BeOS/Zeta, MorphOS, eComStation... add more if necessary)

Add more if you think that they are necessary

HTML

I think word processors should also include HTML editing because otherwise it's just another text editor and there is already a page for the pursose of comparison of text editors. The purpose of this page is to provide more insight into word processors or very advanced text editors. Here we're talking about more features and advantages that a text editor does not have.--Nadyes 21:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with mentioning HTML editing, but historically it is not a criterion for something being a word processor. Word processors as opposed to text editors predate HTML by a long time. Surely WordStar, MS Word in the 1980s, WordPerfect in the 1980s, as well as batch word processors such as Troff, Scribe, and TeX, were word processors, yet none of them provided HTML editing. Some of them still don't. The distinction between a text editor and a word processor is the finer control of graphical detail that a word processor provides. Word processors often come with other facilities, such as HTML editing and spelling correction, but these are not part of the definition.Bill 22:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there are any features that are not necessary for word processors to have to be a word processor, or are not shared by every word processor, they should be included. Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 02:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The Word processor page lists...
  - batch mailing using a form letter template and an address database (also called mail merging)
  - index of keywords and their page numbers
  - table of contents with section titles and their page numbers
  - table of figures with caption titles and their page numbers
  - cross-referencing with section or page numbers
  - footnote numbering
  - spelling checks
  - grammar checks

as common features. But I don't know about grammar checks - AbiWord doesn't have it. Also, keep in mind that this list should not feature historical applications. Import/export file capability should be factored in, as well. Table support and the extent thereof should be added. OS support, obviously. HTML support. Open/closed source. I support auto spell checking as a feature to be included in this table, as Ted does not have it.

This is not a comparison

WTH? This is a list, not a comparison. The article should be renamed or merged. ~~Anonymous User Dude

Judging from both the content and the comments by Nadyes, what it actually is is a presentation of a few peoples' ideas of what a word processor SHOULD be. As such, it might be an acceptable blog post or business proposal, but it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia at all. I think it should be deleted.Bill 00:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, especially since there already is the List of word processors. Anybody have time to put it up for deletion? Mütze 18:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion was just discussed but defeated. There was, I think, consensus that as it stands the article isn't good, but those opposing deletion were of the view that since there COULD be a good article on this topic, it should not be deleted. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be anybody who wants to take the trouble to make it into a good article.Bill 19:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there no better tag to the article than "This article is in need of improvement"? I would have suggested something like "This article needs to be written". It is a very promising title but the content is useless. Mlewan 19:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement

Please see Comparison of text editors for the standard that needs to be aimed for. Tyrenius 02:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defintion of Word Processor

A think the best definition I can think of for a word-processing program is a text editor that is WYSIWYG and geared toward producing documents to be printed. Theshibboleth 07:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]