Talk:Outlook.com

About name

Why don't just name Outlook(like Hotmail)? And add a disambiguation. Asiaworldcity (talk) 05:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Because Microsoft is referring to it as Outlook.com.heat_fan1 (talk) 14:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Asiaworldcity

We already do have three "Outlook"s: See Microsoft Outlook, Outlook Express and Outlook Web App. This will make them four.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Outlook is also a common term, and it is already a disambig page. --Damaster98 (talk) 03:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

'Unique' features?

Would anyone object to the word 'unique' being removed from the sentence: "In comparison to other webmail services, Outlook.com offers the following unique features:"? Many of these features are not unique to Outlook.com, having been available in GMail for years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talkingpie (talk • contribs) 20:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Besides aliases and categories, most of the listed items do have an unique element to it in Outlook.com? --Damaster98 (talk) 03:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Damaster98

Here is a detailed report:

1. Active view: Not unique -- Yahoo! Mail has it
2. Office Web Apps integration: Unique
3. Conversation threading: Not unique -- Both Gmail and Yahoo! Mail feature it
4. Sweep: Unique but irrelevant -- Gmail and Yahoo! Mail have their own philosophy of how to treat mail.
5. Quick views and one-click filters: Not unique -- Both Gmail and Yahoo! Mail offer it
6. Aliases: No info
7. Categories: Not unique -- Both Gmail and Yahoo! Mail have it (as "tags" and "labels")
8. Instant actions: Not unique -- Both Gmail and Yahoo! Mail have it, although not exactly the same commands
9. Skype integration: Unique

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi.

Hotmail have so far changed both name and appearance several times. Outlook.com is just another new name and appearance. Meanwhile, we have a huge chunk of both articles that are essentially the same. Why don't we merge both? The result wouldn't see much difference in size.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree As stated in the article: Outlook.com will eventually replace Hotmail. I don't see a reason to keep two separate articles, Outlook is simply an upgrade to the existing Hotmail. For now, I think this should be redirected to Hotmail#Outlook.com — John Biancato 21:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

 Disagree There are lots of (web-based) interfaces that are preceeded by different names, and they should not be merged. Although not entirely the same, Microsoft Works is really something else than Office Starter 2010, but it is planned as its successor. Have you ever noted that almost every version of Internet Explorer has its own article (like Internet Explorer 5)?? Microsoft FrontPage has been replaced by Microsoft Expression Web and Sharepoint Designer back in 2006! And that's only Microsoft. I should really keep things separated here. You all might be interested in the Category:Discontinued Microsoft software (how do you link to a category page??). Dr. F.C. Turner - [USERPAGE|USERTALK] - 14:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi.

To link to a category page or file page, insert a colon sign (":") before the namespace name. Like this: [[:Category:Discontinued Microsoft software]].

As for your opinion, you are using the old Other stuff exists argument, which is null and void in Wikipedia. Perhaps other stuff are both notable and have little to no overlapping amount of contents (like Internet Explorer versions). Or perhaps, they need to be merged, only no one has proposed yet. Our current concern here is that in comparison, 90% of contents in Outlook.com and Hotmail are duplicate.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Just in response to "Perhaps other stuff are notable (like Internet Explorer versions)" - I would say Outlook.com and Hotmail are more notable than anything else. You also forgot one thing about whether an article should exist on its own or not - whether they are notable on their own merits. Given Hotmail's history, I'd say Hotmail is notable enough to have its own article. The issue I see here is not around whether the two articles should be separate or not, but whether Outlook.com should be further improved rather than leaving it as a copy-edit of Hotmail. This will solve the issue where "90% of contents in Outlook.com and Hotmail are duplicate". --Damaster98 (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Damaster 98. How are you?

You make a good argument that if they are improved, the duplicate content issue will be resolved. But can they be improved to that point in the near future, i.e. two months? If not, merging them, even if temporarily, improves the coverage of both subjects. After all, improving involves a lot of writing, regardless of whether they are merged or not. Unmerging would be done by three clicks.

By the way, I disambiguated part of my last message, since you have misunderstood it.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 06:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment While Hotmail's name and look have changed several times, Hotmail has also been included within those names. Microsoft seem to be marketing Outlook.com as an entirely new product, which I don't completely agree with myself. However, I think Hotmail should continue to have a separate article for it's historical record, and Outlook.com's article should remain for this new product, as it progresses. I expect the Outlook.com service as it is to evolve somewhat by the time it replaces Hotmail. Cloudbound (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Preview vs Introduce

Thanks for the edits to my original edits to the Wikipedia article, correcting "preview" to "introduce". However, by Microsoft's own admission on the Outlook blog recently, Outlook.com left preview and officially launched in 2013. --Tokyocolumbia (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. What do you mean? You used preview as a verb and Microsoft is using it as a noun. Vendors "introduces" or "releases" the preview; consumer "previews" or "tries" the preview. It's a matter of simple English. Am I missing something? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge proposal (2nd)

I think that these articles should be merged. It is in reality the same service, only with different name (the address is even the same). Also, the change happened gradually — Contacts, for example were already in the new outlook.com format several months before. The article content is mostly duplicate. 89.79.10.115 (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support merge. Hotmail has received many upgrades over the years and had many names, e.g. Windows Live Mail. Outlook.com is just another upgrade with another name. Besides, these two article largely overlap. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Now that the migration is complete, whilst Microsoft markets Outlook.com as a brand new service, it's basically the same thing with some new features (like Message History, Skype calls...etc.), so a merge now makes sense. However during the merge please ensure that all information on both articles are retained (unless they're duplicated due to copy-edit at the beginning). --Damaster98 (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)