Talk:Pages (word processor)

Apple Computers?

"developed by Apple Computer" this doesn't read well at all and I'm convinced it should be written Apple Computers. Read it out loud, it just doesn't sound right.

Although it sounds awkward I believe it is correct since it is the name of the company, no need to pluralise it imo. Eidola 06:36, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Apple's official company name is Apple Computer, Inc. So it is correct. "Apple Computers" refers to the international branch of the company which is called "Apple Computers", but in this case it should be called Apple Computer, Inc.

Wackymacs 10:05, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is this moot now since it is Apple, Inc. now, can we delete these comments? Preclaro 19:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Other word processor links

Love it or loathe it Microsoft Word is the most widely used Word Processor, and it seems odd not to include it in the Links.

• I have added it to the links list. Wackymacs 10:07, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am admittedly more of a loather than a lover (".DOC emails" give me the creeps) but this sentence is hilarious anyway:

It is generally considered that Pages is best suited for basic page layout and word processing tasks, while Microsoft Word and Adobe InDesign are more suited for publishing large-scale advertisement materials or an entire printed book.

There's this semi-humoruos saying: If Microsoft Word was designed for making long documents, they would have called it Microsoft Book. Granted, newer versions are more suitable to the task than older ones, but a professional DTP program or even LaTeX (if you know how to use it) are still much better choices for creating a book than Word. By the way, my father is a freelance journalist and very fond of Microsoft for no explicable reason (Macs are made for the type of work he is doing!), and not even he is naive enough to use Word for DTP. Instead, he uses QuarkXPress to layout newspapers and advertising material. Even though IIRC he writes the raw articles with basic formatting in Word, he would never think of using that thing for prepress. There are many reasons for not using Word as a pseudo-DTP program: crude support for page layout, bloaty native file format, lack of stability, problems with Encapsulated PostScript support, lack of color management and last but not least many publishers don't even accept .DOC files because of reproducibility problems (prepress requires that documents print exactly the same as they looked in your DTP program or print previewer). But PDF export from MS Word requires Acrobat Distiller.

Take a look at the article on Microsoft Publisher (if Word is so great at DTP, why does Microsoft even sell a program called Microsoft Publisher???), quote:

It is often considered to be an entry-level desktop publishing application, and to provide superior control over page elements to Microsoft Word but inferior to page layout programs such as Adobe Systems' InDesign and Quark, Inc.'s QuarkXPress.

Also, I think you can drop the link to Abiword, too. If people care about other word processors, send them to a category for it. Otherwise, you're going to need to link OpenOffice, AppleWorks, and on and on with no end. --Carl 12:53, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

NeXT version?

Is this version of Pages related to the version that Steve Jobs developed at Next?

• Yes, It is since Steve Jobs is currently the CEO of Apple, and is slowly bringing the NeXT Software over to the Mac OS X platform. Wackymacs 10:05, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I have researched in this and actually know that Pages under Mac OS X is a port, as I have done research in this area, the picture should not have been removed without discussion on this page first. Wackymacs 09:38, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• What does your research consist of? What's the evidence? "I actually know this to be true" isn't an adequate justification unless you're talking about something you've done yourself. If research has led you to conclude this, then instead of just saying "this is a port," present the evidence that suggests it may be port to the reader. Evidence against it being a port include the fact that Pages for NeXTstep -wasn't- a product of NeXT the company. What's the evidence _for_ it other than "This word processor has the same really common name as this other one from 15 years ago?" I appreciate that you've done research, but unless you can actually show the sources that research uncovered, all we've got is your personal word for it, which isn't good enough. Nandesuka 16:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• This page written by Bruce F. Webster, who was Chief Architect and CTO at Pages Software Inc. may be relevant. I quote: "And I was tickled that, when Apple brought out its own word processor, it was named “Pages”. Steve had always liked that name when we were developing (and shipping) our own product years before; glad he was able to use it." Bruce makes no mention of any code being ported over, just the same name being used. This doesn't prove that Pages for Mac wasn't a port of Pages by Pages, but it does imply that it was not. Jwelby (talk) 15:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Critical praise?

I am puzzled why this article gives the impression that Pages drew critical praise. In fact, if one checks around, you'll see that the general scuttlebutt is that Pages has a LONG ways to go before it is a quality program.

OpenDocument support?

Can Pages import and export OpenDocument Text files? --Hhielscher 16:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Pages can't open *.odt files. 160.39.175.200 (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent caps

In the list of Word features that Pages lacks was the point: "Intelligent caps formatting (upper case of first letter in the sentences)." It has been removed twice with little explanation.

Actually, I think few people care, but here are the details. Where Pages menu item says: Format > Font > Capitalization there are three options: "None", "All Caps", "Small Caps".

Word gives a full window called "Change Case" with the options "lowercase" (not in Pages), "UPPERCASE" (Pages' "All Caps"), "Title Case" (not in Pages), "tOGGLE cASE" (not in Pages) and "Sentence case". The last one you only get in Pages if you have Auto-correction on, as far as I can tell. So it cannot be applied to already entered text or text pasted from other applications. Auto-correction of initial in sentences exists in Word as well as a separate function.

Pages' option for "Small Caps" exists in the Font window in MS Word.

Please, correct me if I am wrong in any of the points above. Mlewan 20:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Bold and italic fonts, Arabic support

In the Pages vs Word section, Pages is said not to have support for "Italics and bold in fonts with no built in support for it."

I'm not sure about what "no built in support for it" but Pages really does support italics and bold in fonts, accessible via the Fonts button. The reason why there are no Bold/Italics/Underline buttons in the toolbar is that the preferred way of using them is via paragraph styles, which is considered to be more meaningful.

The other issue I'm concerned with is Arabic support. I haven't tried it myself, since I cannot read or write using the Arabic alphabet, but has anyone actually tried to use Pages like this? As far as I know, support for right-to-left scripting is embedded in OS X itself, thus not being listed as Pages feature anywhere (since it's expected to have anyhow). The same goes about vertical Japanese scripting -- which is not supported directly in OS X (can you imagine a dialog box where everything is displayed vertically?).

As a sidenote, I'm half disagreeing with the comparison there. It gives the impression that Pages is not a quality program and lacks many of Word's features Pages *does* miss a lot of Word's features indeed, but many features are of questionable relevance for a word processor. This is the case of Word Art for example -- as far as i've seen, most users who need anything fancier than a background picture and a meaningful font resort to using a drawing tool, simply because Word Art is not very flexible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.231.126.206 (talk • contribs)

Each font has type faces. You can see that in the Font dialog of OS X. For example Helvetica has Regular, Oblique, Bold, Bold Oblique. Some fonts have only one type face. For example Gulim has only Regular. If you use Gulim in Pages, there is no way you can italicize it, as it lacks an Oblique type face. In MS Word there is no problem to do it.

There is a good reason for Pages not to italicize Gulim - the result is ugly. However, in some cases there are reasons to do it nevertheless, like when you make notes to yourself and want to emphasize part of the text. This is a common source of confusion brought up in the Pages discussion forum.

People have tried using both Arabic and Hebrew in Pages, and the only way to make it work is with copy and paste from other applications. It works less well than for example TextEdit for some reason. Your Multilingual Mac has more information on Arabic in MacOS X applications.

Even though I wrote most of it, I agree that the comparison may look like it is biased against Pages. However, it contains the kind of information a lot of people look for in the discussion forum. Some people miss a Word Art module, whether than logically should be part of a word processor or not. Besides, MS Word actually has more functionality - something which is reflected in its higher price. Not all of it is useful functionality for everyone, but it is there. Mlewan 19:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Now I got it :-). I didn't understand what you meant by lack of built-in italics/bold support. It's a fair point indeed. Thanks a lot for the reply. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.231.126.206 (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

So basically what is being said is: Pages cannot create a bold typeface from a font which does not supply a bold version of that typeface, nor can it oblique a typeface in that same manner.

Is that right?

If so, many a typography teacher would be happy that the user is only allowed to work with the type in its "natural state", or such was my experience. Crocadillion 13:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Give MS Word to an inexperienced user, and the result will be a typographer's worst nightmare. With Pages it is much more difficult to go wrong. However, not all users care, and not all texts are written for a context where typography matters. (Think early drafts, outlines, todo-lists, etc.)

I think we may have tried to give a point to Pages as well for this in a previous version of the article. Something like "Protecting inexperienced users from bad typefaces". However, it was very difficult to express so people understood it. Besides, without any clear message in Pages' UI, a lot of users perceive this feature as a simple bug, so they do not feel protected at all. (See the Pages discussion forum.) Mlewan 19:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Too many examples?

The list of differences between Word and Pages is not just a list of examples. It is a fairly exhaustive list of the major differences. The question Word vs. Pages is one of the more common ones in Apple's forum, and this list is the one usually pointed to when the question arises. It is in other words perhaps the most useful part of this Wikipedia article.

Unless anyone objects, I will remove the tag in a few days. Mlewan 19:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I object. This is an encyclopedia, not a median for comparisons. At minimum it needs to be combed through to make sure it's all relevant and possibly organised in a table. Wikipedia:Lists Nja247 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It has been combed through several times. All the items are relevant. All the items are things people have asked about - directly or indirectly. I agree that a table format would look nicer, but the drawback with a table is that it is more difficult to edit. It would exclude Pages enthusiasts who do not know how to edit Wikipedia tables. Mlewan 03:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

MS Word and images

It would really clutter the comparison list Word vs. Pages if one listed all the image functions in the two programs. However, for the benefit of the curious, here is a non-exhaustive list of Word image functionality:

• Rectangular, Oval, Lasso, Polygonal Lasso and Magic Lasso selection tools.
• Cut out from selection. Crop.
• Red-eye correction.
• RGB and Saturation adjustment controls.
• Scratch removal.
• Change to grey-scale, black and white or "watermark" colour modes.
• Brightness and Contrast adjustments.
• 48 different customizable effects like "Stained Glass", "Texturizer", "Ripple" and so on.
• Transparent colour (just one, though, in contrast to Pages smooth expansion of transparent areas).
• Fill colour to fill in transparent areas.

Etc.

It may not be implemented in a very elegant way, but it is there. When it comes to the number of graphical tools, MS Word 2004 in no way lays behind Pages 3.0. When it comes to the elegance of the actual implementation, one could argue for the opposite.

To the best of my knowledge, no one in Apple's discussion forums has complained about the lack of any of the above functionality. For that reason, I think it is not vital information, and it should not be added to the article.

Lack of references

I do not deny that the article could be improved, but please, specify where references are needed, when a tag is added. Remember that references are needed only when there is reason to doubt the content. Mlewan 19:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Comparison

I requested that the features comparison be reordered into a table, since the way it is now makes any real comparison a bit difficult, you have to scroll up and down and it's not really helpful. Tapir666 (talk) 13:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out: this article needs to be updated to compare Pages to the new version of Office for Macs, 2008. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.129.250 (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe in addition to the Comparison of word processors page there should be a Comparison of OSX word processors page, or the addition of a table to this article comparing features. 160.39.175.200 (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm also concerned that the comparison is not sourced and that it is in fact not comparing Pages 08 but rather Pages 06. I would make some changes but without putting in a lot of time to double-check everything, I'm afraid I may miss something. But there are obvious things wrong with it. For example, Office 2004 can (I think) open .docx and similar files with an update from Microsoft. And, as someone who has Pages as his primary word processor, I find myself doubting many of the features the article claims it is missing. And perhaps Office 2004 (since still pretty common) or maybe even Office for Windows can be compared in the table too? And finally, the table could easily be modified to the iWork 08 article and other iWork articles. Althepal (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

For example, I believe that Pages does indeed support the following (leading me to believe that the original author was not knowledgeable about Pages and has made other mistakes as well): "Organization Charts, Linked and Embedded Objects, US Barcode printing, Master documents, Vertical Script and Japanese furigana, WordArt, Drop Caps, Intelligent caps formatting (like Title Case), Editing of HTML, Split document window, Footnotes, bookmarks, and comments in tables, Save and open RTF files with pictures, Paste Special - for pasting a chart as an image, and Hyperlinked cross-references". Writing in RTL for Hebrew also works fine for me in any program. I can't say with certainty that everything else in the existing comparison is either true or false. Althepal (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a little surprising that you think those items are in Pages. If you have Pages, you can look for them, and you will not find any of them. If you do not have Pages, you can search http://discussions.apple.com/forum.jspa?forumID=1191 and http://discussions.apple.com/forum.jspa?forumID=777 for these items, and you will find plenty of entries that confirm that they are missing or very limited. Mlewan (talk) 04:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not sure. But anyway, the article is at least not completely correct either. Maybe it was based on Pages 2, I don't know. But take a look, for example, at http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/7239/picture1dr2.png this screenshot I just took of Pages. In the article it says "Intelligent caps formatting (like Title Case) [is missing from Pages]", yet my screenshot shows a menu allowing Title Caps, does it not? The article says Pages also doesn't have "Footnotes, bookmarks, and comments in tables" but just look at http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/4428/picture2nv8.png and you'll see a comment for text in a table. Or what about http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/9923/picture3rt7.png which shows "Linked and Embedded Objects". Look, I may not be completely right about every feature I listed above, but just be careful and be absolutely sure before saying a program can or cannot do something. Althepal (talk) 06:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not on a Mac now, so I cannot triple check, but I think the problem with those things is that the description is not clear enough - not that they are wrong.

"Title Case" is upper case on every word in MS Word. In Pages I think it is just on the first word. Come to think of it, the point may be minor, so perhaps it should be removed for that reason. People do complain about automatic capitalisation in Pages, but usually not for that reason.

The Comment in the picture seems to apply to the table itself - not to the text inside the table. That is what people have complained about, as far as I remember.

Linked and Embedded Objects refers to OLE and has nothing to do with hyperlinks.

That said, there is of course no guarantee that the list is completely free from errors. Anything can be improved - especially on Wikipedia. Mlewan (talk) 12:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It actually does capitalize the first letter of each word, use small caps, all caps, or no caps, depending on which option you choose. I see what you're saying about the table. But do you really think most people will be interested in which word processor can make a comment for any text in a table and which one can only make comments for a table as a whole? And you know, there are other things. Like who cares if, for special document formats, Word calls it "save as" and Pages calls it "export"? It's the same feature. I think we're on the same page here. The list isn't perfect as it is and it should be trimmed and double-checked. I could also check the features on Word 2008, but that uses up about 3x the system memory that Pages does. (Hey, wanna put "Memory footprint" into the comparison? ;-) Althepal (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay I did just get through looking a bit at Word 2008. I indeed now see several of the above listed features which I did not see (after carefully looking) at Pages. Just one thing: Word did not correct the Spanish grammar error I wrote. Althepal (talk) 19:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The title capitalisation may indeed be something that was changed with one of the later versions of Pages. I removed it from the list.

Comments in tables have been discussed rather firmly in the discussion forums, so yes, people care.

The difference between "Save" and "Export" is huge, but that may not be clear from the current wording. If you open a Word document in TextEdit or NeoOffice to correct a missing comma, you can then press command-s to save the file and you are done. Same thing if you open an HTML or RTF in Word. If you open a Word document in Pages, you will have to click on the menu File, then Export, then click on the "Word" icon, then click on "Next...", then make sure that the name of the document matches the original, and that you are in the right location, then accept to overwrite the existing file (or perhaps another file with the same name if you are in a different location). Now you have saved the file. You then need to close the open document, but before you can do that you have to confirm a dialog that says that "Your changes will be lost if you don't save them." (What the ...? I just saved them, didn't I? I'd better export again...) There has been a lot of complaints about this process in the forums. Admittedly some people do not mind, but opinions are very divided.

When it comes to grammar, the English international version of Word 2004 has some sort of grammar check for French, German, Italian and Swedish, as far as I can tell. It is possible that the Spanish version has Spanish grammar, but MS are notoriously bad at giving that kind of information. I know the Japanese version has more Japanese features than the International English version, even with Japanese language features switched on. Mlewan (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Draft table comparison chart, please edit and expand based on actual sources or programs (not just previous state of article)

As it stands, I have not double-checked information in this table. I was mostly basing it on the existing article and just left out the items that seemed were more likely incorrect. Althepal (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

	Pages 3.0	Office 2008	Office 2004
Advanced graphics (such as 3D charts, image rotation, and object shadows)	Yes	Yes	No
Alignment guides	Yes	Partial	No
Automatic font scaling	Yes	Yes	No
Autosave	No	Yes	Yes
Grammar checking	Partial (English only)	Yes	Yes
Image masking	Yes	Yes	No
Image editing	Yes	No	No
Open and save Pages documents	Yes	No	No
Open and save .docx documents	Yes	Yes	Partial (requires add-on)
Spell check (multi-language)	Yes	Partial requires specification of language	Partial requires specification of language
Support for Mac OS X Services	Yes	No	No
Support for Spaces	Yes	No	Yes
Visual Basic macros	No	No	Yes
	Pages 3.0	Office 2008	Office 2004

Thanks for the work, and it does look nice. However, I'm not sure table format is the best choice here. The two lists are a very limited subset of functionality in both products. A lot of functions are clearly common to both products like copy, paste, table of contents, images, paragraph styles, character styles, templates tables, calculations, and so on. I'm not sure a table with just the differences makes sense. Besides, a table is more difficult to maintain, so people may be more reluctant to update it. Mlewan (talk) 04:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The comparison table is only intended to show the differences. And I'd think it would be actually easier to maintain than a list. Even if not, it'd probably help the reader find information faster, which is really the whole point. Althepal (talk) 06:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That may indeed be true. I do not want to discourage you, if you want to try doing it, and it does indeed look nicer. Even if I am not convinced it is an improvement, it may turn out to be so in the end. Mlewan (talk) 12:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. It's just kind of easier for me to have everything organized, but that's just me. Also a paragraph-style comparison (the writing style, not the program feature) might be another option to consider. You know, instead of a list or a table, it could actually be more of a discussion of the differences (sourced, of course). Like it could say (and don't use this as a first draft, it's just an example), "Pages is often compared to its prime competition, Office for Mac. Though the programs share many standard features, as well as more advanced ones such as 3D graphics and template documents, there are a number of differences. For example, Word has Autosave and Pages doesn't. Yet Word has been known to be unstable, use lots of memory, and crash, making this autosave feature more important.^[cite] Pages can also take advantages of Mac OS X services yet Word can't. etc." What do you think of the general idea? Althepal (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm against a non structured comparison. People can browse a list or a table, but it takes much more time to browse prose. When it comes to comparison, people usually want to browse in my experience. Mlewan (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Word Processor

Is Pages really a word processor? I would have likened it more to a basic DTP package like Pagemaker. I'm not sure all the stuff in the article comparing it to MS Word is very meaningful. 195.172.215.82 (talk) 09:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It is "useful" as it is information people often ask for at Apple's forums and presumably elsewhere too. Whether it is a "real" word processor or not is of course open for discussion. The border is sometimes blurry. Mlewan (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

As it stands on iWork '08, Pages is both a (basic) WP and a (basic) DTP, as shown by the two modes it can works in, selectable via the new template dialog, which sorts templates in two categories "Word Processing" and "Page Layout". Then, the mode is shown in the title bar alongside the document name. Lloeki (talk) 11:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

MS Word Compatibility

I'm seeing this statement on the current page: "Among Microsoft Office applications, it competes with both Microsoft Word and Microsoft Publisher, and does not have compatibility with ether."

However, I just watched Apple's video on this subject, and they say that Pages can read and write MS Word files. They don't go into details about which features are preserved, however. (For example, both programs have multi-author-identified revision tracking, and an integrated outliner, but are they interoperable between the two programs?)

Anyway, it's possible that the blanket claim that they don't have compatibility with each other is outdated.

The statement is not outdated, but neither is it fully correct. There has always been some kind of compatibility with MS Word, but always was unreliable. When the text says that Pages "competes" with MS Publisher, that to me hints that there are people who are choosing one over the other, or even that people choose Mac or PC based on the abilities of Pages vs MS Publisher. I doubt that is true.

I have mostly given up editing Wikipedia for different reasons, but if someone else wants to change the text, feel free. --Mlewan (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Grammar

The phrase "... if a user wants to send one letter to three different people, mail merge allows them to create a single document with ..." is incorrect; there is a conflict between the singular "user" and the plural "them". Possible edits include:

"... if users want to send one letter to three different people, mail merge allows them to create a single document with ..."

"... if a user wants to send one letter to three different people, mail merge allows him to create a single document with ..."

"... if a user wants to send one letter to three different people, mail merge allows her to create a single document with ..."

I lean toward the second option; it reads better. But I'll leave it to the group mind to decide.

Mhagerman (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there is a third option, which was used here: "them" or "they" is a common usage in, you know, this century. Here's a couple of references: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/08/donald-trump-may-win-this-years-word-of-the-year/ Many more references are readily available on Google. 71.93.172.45 (talk) 03:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Move notice

This article was moved from Pages to Pages (iWork) following discussion at Talk:Numbers (software)#Moving Numbers (software). Pages now redirects to a WP:DAB at Page. Certes (talk) 22:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Hardware

Would someone please add a note to the Version History, indicating the last version that supported the PowerPC architecture? Thanks. Paul Magnussen (talk) 17:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

"Buy Features"?

I have a serious problem with this paragraph from the article:

"In recent changes to many Apple software applications such as in iPhoto to Photos, there has been a focus on stripping productive features. The features removed however end up as apps on the App Store where users have to buy apps to add features. Some Mac users have viewed this as Apple's idea of monitizing its once free and popular softwares by offering skeleton versions that can only be made productive again by buying apps."

This doesn't cite any sources and I am not aware of any such circumstance. Is there any example of this happening at all? Photos has more features than iPhotos, but they tend to be more hidden. Where features have been removed, there is usually a workaround to provide similar functionality. Tell me where I can 'buy' AppleScript support for Pages in the App Store... Leeeoooooo (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I've taken it out because (a) monitizing and softwares aren't words (b) it's not about Pages (c) it's unsourced. It probably has a germ of truth in it, but it needs to be sourced and moved to an article about DLC or something similar. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Monitizing IS a word in, you know, this century. It's not a duck, it's not a Buick, it's a word. Not one I'd care to use myself, but the meaning is clear, and it is in widespread use. As for "softwares", that's a word too, but we can agree it's not a recognized grammatical form of the word. No need to be snide. You could just correct it if it bothers you. "Unsourced", if that's a word, fair enough. It does seem like it has something to do with Pages, though. However, it probably isn't the whole truth; for instance, the stripping out of features may be part of the mobile-platformizing (it's a word, NOW!) of the OS. 71.93.172.45 (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pages (word processor). 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://web.archive.org/web/20140820214155/https://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/specialevent0110/ to https://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/specialevent0110/

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) 03:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Copy editing queries

Infoboxes

• To achieve consistency within the article, I recommend including the same information in both infoboxes (the “Pages for macOS” infobox does not include information about a stable release, and the “Pages for iOS” infobox does not state what version number is displayed in the above image).

History

• In the first sentence of this section, it should say what operating system the fourth version was for. The second sentence should also indicate what operating system the new version was for.

• In the first paragraph, the following clause may need to be revised for clarity. Below is a possible revision (Note that the reference for this particular text should be consulted before accepting the possible revision).

Original: “…bringing universal binaries, allowing the app to be run on iPad, iPhone, and iPod Touch devices.”

Possible revision (but only if accurate): “…bringing including universal binaries allowing that allowed the app to be run on iPad, iPhone, and iPod Touch devices.”

• Near the end of the first paragraph, change “Word and Pages for Mac” to read “Microsoft Word and Pages for OS X”?

• The last paragraph may need to have some clarifying text added. Does Pages 5.0 work on both regular computers as well as iOS devices?

Features

• In the first paragraph, the following text may need to be revised:

“including a basic, report, letter, resume, envelope,…”

It is unclear what “basic” is referring to.

• At the very end of the third paragraph, change the word “canvas” to “page”? (for clarity)

• The end of the fourth paragraph should be revised for clarity. Below is a possible revision (Note that the reference for this particular text should be consulted before accepting the possible revision):

Original: “The mail merge feature was completely removed in version 5. Tables and charts pasted from Numbers are automatically updated if the original spreadsheet is changed.”

Possible revision (but only if accurate): “The mail merge feature was completely removed in version 5, but tables and charts pasted from Numbers were still automatically updated if the original spreadsheet was changed.”

Compatibility

• In the fourth paragraph, I recommend adding text that details what LibreOffice is capable of doing with Pages files.
• The last half of the fifth paragraph should be revised for clarity. Below is a possible revision (please read it carefully to ensure that everything is accurate, and note that the reference for this particular text should be consulted before accepting the possible revision):

Original: “While there is no program that can view or edit a .pages file using Windows or Linux, some content can be retrieved from a document created in Pages '09, because a .pages file is actually a bundle. A user can open a .pages file in an unpackaging program, or by renaming files as .zip files in Windows (XP and onwards), and will find either a .jpg or .pdf preview in its entirety for viewing and printing, though only possible if the creator of the .pages files elected to include a preview. The user will also find a .xml file with unformatted text. This process can also be used for users of the 2008 version of Pages to open documents saved in the 2009 version of Pages, which are not backward compatible.”

Possible revision (but only if accurate): “While there is no program that can view or edit a .pages file using Windows or Linux, some content can be retrieved from a document created in Pages '09, because a .pages file is actually a bundle. A user can open a .pages file in an unpackaging program, or by renaming files as .zip files in Windows (XP and onwards). The user will be able to find either a .jpg or .pdf preview in its entirety for viewing and printing, though this is only possible if the creator of the .pages file elected to include a preview. The user will also be able to find an .xml file with unformatted text. This process can also be used by users of the 2008 version of Pages to open documents saved in the 2009 version of Pages, which are not backward compatible.”

macOS version history

• The entry for version 2.0 may need to be revised.

“Released as part of iWork '06. Includes new templates, table calculations, photo masking with shapes and freestyle bezier curves.”

Should a comma appear after “shapes”? (…photo masking with shapes, and freestyle bezier curves.”)

• The entry for version 3.0 should be revised. Below is a possible revision:

Original: “Pages 3.0 was released as part of iWork '08. It introduces compatibility with Office Open XML (Microsoft Office 2007) files. Introduced Change Tracking. Transparency tool for pictures. Pages 3.0 needs only a third (260 MB) of the hard disk space required for Pages 2.0 (760 MB) despite the added functionality.”

Possible revision (but only if accurate): “Pages 3.0 was released as part of iWork '08. It introduces compatibility with Office Open XML (Microsoft Office 2007) files. It introduces Track Changes and the Transparency tool for pictures. Pages 3.0 needs only a third (260 MB) of the hard disk space required for Pages 2.0 (760 MB) despite the added functionality.”

• In the entry for version 3.0.1, should it read “track changes”?

• In the entry for version 4.1, is “Versions” okay? Is this a feature in Pages?

• In the entry for version 5.1, should it read “The return of the vertical ruler and a few other features.”?

References

• Many of the entries in the reference list are missing important information. Each entry should include an author, a date, and a retrieved date if it is from a website. The dates should also all be written in month/day/year form for consistency with the article.

Miscellaneous query

• There is a section that talks about the macOS version history, but no section that talks about the iOS version history. Should one be added?

Sign off

Copy editing completed for "Pages (word processor)"! Any questions or concerns can be posted to my talk page. It was a pleasure to work on the article! David Thibault (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Pages (word processor). 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://web.archive.org/web/20110329021623/https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jan/11iwork.html to https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jan/11iwork.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110630082642/http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/01/06iwork.html to https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/01/06iwork.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110329021622/https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/jan/10iwork.html to https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/jan/10iwork.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT207243

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) 08:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)