Talk:Microsoft Publisher

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of Computing WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to computers and computing. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an rating on the importance scale.

"For those who need to work with Publisher files, but lack the core application there is amazingly a solution. Ask the creator of the Publisher file to reopen it in Publisher and save each page as an EMF (enhanced metafile). These load almost perfectly into both OpenOffice Draw on Linux and Adobe Illustrator on the Mac or Windows. The result can then be easily re-exported as a PDF file."

Is this really appropriate for an encyclopedia?

I think it does belong, but written in a better fashion. Maybe something like, "Publisher can also export documents as EMF (enhanced metafile), a more universal format." Any comments?

Indeed: quite apart from the fact that this is not a how-to compilation, whether or not such a solution is "amazing" entirely a matter for the reader to decide.


I agree with all of the above and have made a change along that line, as well as excising the in-depth instructions on how to import EMFs elsewhere and easily export to PDF. As well, I removed the part where the author said "Broadly speaking, there is little Microsoft Publisher can do that cannot be done with OpenOffice.org Draw" (or words to that effect). While I have not used OpenOffice.org Draw, everything I found indicates it's a vector art program like Adobe Illustrator or CorelDRAW! and not a desktop publishing or page layout program. Being able to manipulate text doesn't make it a layout program, and unless I'm missing something, OpenOffice.org Draw isn't designed for that. If someone out there uses OOD and knows something about it I don't, by all means correct me on it. Indy 15:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

w8t, wat does publisher do? make newsletters?75.7.18.93 05:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)jamielover (soz i forgot my password)

Contents

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


  • Weak oppose per WP:NC(CN). Everyone calls it "Microsoft Publisher" (or just "Publisher"), I've heard maybe one person refer to it as Microsoft Office Publisher. Stannered 12:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

hjfjhgjhtuythjgjgjghjtufhgjgjghkjluouyutyrtwrwrewxbcnbvbm, jfgyutryt';ll4574e6rymiked89ut5789uw879tr7ytuierw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.129.29 (talk) 01:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 12:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inferior to Adobe . . .

"...but inferior to page layout programs such as Adobe Systems' InDesign and Quark, Inc.'s QuarkXPress".

I'm not sure if this is appropriate. I happen to agree with the statement but this is my subjective view. I think one needs to be careful when calling products superior or inferior when they are made by different companies, unless the company itself (i.e. Microsoft) explicitly states this to be the case. Would Microsoft like to think that their publishing solution was 'inferior' to those of its competitors? Probably not.

Perhaps a fairer statement would be to say, for example, that it is "targeted at home users" or something along those lines. I've updated the article to say this, unless anyone has objections --Christopher 20:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a problem with the tone of the whole article. It sounds like it was written by someone in Adobe's marketing department. Westwind273 03:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Professional SKU

Hi User:Stannered. I dont know what SKU means - I once had MS Office 97 Professional and MS Publisher 97 wasn't included. Necessary Evil 21:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

A SKU is short for "Stock Keeping Unit", and refers to "Standard", "Professional", "Small Business Edition", "Premium", etc. From what I can tell, some versions of Office 97 Pro came without Publisher, where some came with. Stannered 15:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The ValuPack came with Publisher 98, but it was on a seperate disc. Douglas C (talk) 08:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OH NO!!

I can't insert an animated GIF button (I have 2003). Will you PLEASE help me??  PNiddy  Go!  0 19:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Pub2000.PNG

Image:Pub2000.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 (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Pub2003.PNG

Image:Pub2003.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 (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Pub97.PNG

Image:Pub97.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 (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)