| Summary: | Bibliography Database should be empty for new installs | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | LibreOffice | Reporter: | Jeremy Bicha <jbicha> |
| Component: | Writer | Assignee: | Not Assigned <libreoffice-bugs> |
| Status: | RESOLVED NOTABUG | ||
| Severity: | normal | ||
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | Inherited From OOo | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | All | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Crash report or crash signature: | Regression By: | ||
| Attachments: |
biblio.odb
screenshot |
||
Created attachment 128777 [details]
screenshot
Yes, the inclusions are deliberate and so, not a bug. LO installations have always included them as an example of the type of data to use in the bibliography.odb file, indeed, this was inherited from OpenOffice.org. (In reply to Alex Thurgood from comment #2) > LO installations have always included them as an example of the type of data > to use in the bibliography.odb file, indeed, this was inherited from > OpenOffice.org. Ok, but I think it *is* a bug. Microsoft Word has a 'Source Manager' feature accessible from the References tab which is roughly equivalent to LibreOffice's Bibliography Database. It's empty by default. I don't think the sample data is useful at all. I think someone that is going to use the Bibliography Database understands what 'Author', 'Title', and 'Publisher' mean. All we need is the database structure, not the data. Please reopen this bug. |
Created attachment 128776 [details] biblio.odb LibreOffice 5.2.2.2 64-bit edition on Windows 10 I opened LibreOffice and clicked Tools>Bibliography Database and was surprised to see 20 entries. My opinion is that these entries are not useful and are "clutter". Were these entries intentionally included? Screeenshot and biblio.db attached.