Talk:Gedit

Comparison of text editors
Can someone familiar with gedit add it to Comparison of text editors??? I would, but I'm not knowledgeable enough with it to know those features. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deeahbz (talk • contribs)
 * ✅ - Ahunt (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Extentions
When programming your own extensions there are variables that can be called related to the file like $GEDIT_CURRENT_DOCUMENT_PATH. Could we produce a table of all of them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.213.3.6 (talk) 02:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Advertisement??
OK, someone complained about the article written as an advertisement. I'm willing to rewrite the article a little, since I'll make some evaluation about rewriting the s/w gedit itself. But an complaint should usually be matched by an explanation what's wrong on this talk page. So, now I'm asking: insert any specific complaints here, please!  Said: Rursus   ☻   14:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * A fast read-thru gives the impression of this article simply being a very neutral, somewhat stubby description on what gedit can do, and else no evaluation for or against. I think the tag should be replaced with  or some such; it's as neutral as the color of granite.  Said:  Rursus   ☻   14:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I just went over the article and basically fixed all the complaints I had. The main one was that, as I suspected, there were a couple of places where material was quoted without a citation. Fortunately, the major instance of this was from a GFDL page, so it isn't a problem. Now, if I can just work on remembering to be bold the first time I edit a page... « Aaron Rotenberg « Talk « 18:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Very well! I use to appreciate be bold from anyone, but sometimes such as yesterday, I was some little too bold regarding the half life of Dubnium, so I had to remake some 3 times, because I found more and more sources telling me new halflifes ;-). I'm still not exactly sure if my edits were correct, or just a backwards update.  Said: Rursus   ☻   19:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Citation format
As per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citation_styles, shouldn't somebody change it to include Free Software Magazine, Andrew Min, etcetera? I would, but I don't know how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.5.119.44 (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Userboxes
If you use gedit, please feel free to put any of these on your user page!

- Ahunt (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Pros and cons
OK, gedit is wide spread enough that some pros and cons might be appropriate for the article. (For my part it's a notepad that has too many facilities). But I'll see what I can find out there. Said: Rursus (☻) 09:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Just for fun (zero seriosity factor), before making a survey:
 * google:"gedit rules" - 269,
 * google:"gedit sucks" - 240,
 * so it actually rules a little more than it sucks. Said: Rursus (☻) 09:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As long as you can find acceptable sources then a criticism section would be good. - Ahunt (talk) 11:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes of course. Except the topic in question, and its public, determines what's acceptable. And the public is You, so what do You think is acceptable? Said: Rursus (☻) 15:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Programmers' needs
This text has bumped in and out now and then:
 * As of May 2008 gedit lacks the capability of split windows and viewing one file by multiple windows, a common feature of program text editors.

I think such clauses do qualify for programs that is intended to fulfill some purposes, f.ex. programmers needs, even though the text editor can be used for example for other purposes as well. So I think it should be in the article, however not necessarily in the intro. Move it around, but don't shrink the article into informative void, please! Said: Rursus (☻) 18:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you have a good point that this does belong in the article, although it needs a reference. The article needs a criticism section and this belongs in that, not in the lead, so I have started a criticism section and moved the statement there. Let me see if I can find a ref for this. - Ahunt (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Reference found and added to the section. - Ahunt (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Good! I think using the bug-list of the program can be considered being a very neutral source of criticisms, since it implies the feature is going to be implemented in the future anyways. Said: Rursus (☻) 19:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Glad that was helpful. I see the bug list for any application as being a fair source of criticism information along with published reviews as well! If you are interested I also found a list of outstanding gedit bugs, although it didn't list this one. I found that through a bug search instead. This should be a source of major criticisms, although no need to list all of them. In many cases the bug reports themselves include a response from the developers which can be used as a counterpoint. For instance in the bug report cited one developer (it doesn't say he is a gedit developer) states that he doesn't see gedit as being used for coding. - Ahunt (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * To say it "lacks the capability" implies that it is not possible to do something. This is nonsense: split view plugins abound (example).  It seems to be quite common in the Linux world for programs to leave all but the most basic features to plugins, as it allows program customisability without recompiling.  E.g. in Evolution (software), functionality such as the initial setup wizard, new mail notification, and junk filter are all plugins rather than in the core program.  Most distros feel that this is needed functionality, and so have the plugins in the default install; which is why the Evolution article isn't cluttered up with people complaining that Evolution "lacks the capability of a junk filter, a common feature of email programs".  I've no idea how many distros ship a split view plugin by default, but if whoever first added the criticism's distro doesn't, that's hardly a criticism of gedit. -- simxp (talk) 04:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Logo about to change
There is a contest to change the logo of gedit: http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/03/gedit-want-new-logo.html


 * Well I guess if they change the logo we can put the new one in the article. - Ahunt (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

When was Gedit developed/released?
. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.97.3 (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It is right in the info box "Initial release 12 February 1999". - Ahunt (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Windows Standalone EXE 32-bit 2.30.1, 64-bit 3.20.1
https://wiki.gnome.org/Apps/Gedit

http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/binaries/win32/gedit/2.30/

http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/binaries/win64/gedit/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810B:C53F:B9E8:E585:EB14:A87D:7A69 (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gedit. 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/20080518020959/http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/columns/gedit_powerful_underrated_text_editor_everybody to http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/columns/gedit_powerful_underrated_text_editor_everybody

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Citation formatting issue
I'm new to Wikipedia, and I spotted this:

Since version 3.20 gedit uses gspell for spell checking.[13][14][14][15][14]

It seems a bit strange that citation 14 is repeated 3 times, is this a mistake or is this on purpose? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlin04atschool (talk • contribs) 18:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for catching that, it was a mistake. - Ahunt (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Windows version no longer officially existent
The official GNOME Wiki links to the Microsoft Store for the Windows version of gedit. That app was a paid app before. Regardless of that, the Microsoft Store says "gedit is currently not available.".

https://wiki.gnome.org/Apps/Gedit#On_Windows

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/gedit/9pl1j21xf0pt

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:C23:90BB:8200:8C37:A6A7:6E78:E403 (talk) 10:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing that up and supplying then refs, too. - Ahunt (talk) 12:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Gnomelogo.svg

Default text editor for GNOME
, I wanted to discuss this edit, because I'm not so sure the IP's change was wrong. GNOME Text Editor appears to be the default text editor for GNOME as of GNOME 42, according to the GNOME 42 release notes. It's also replaced Gedit on the list at GNOME Apps. To verify this I installed Fedora Workstation 36 in VirtualBox to test it out (Fedora 36 uses GNOME 42), and not only is GNOME Text Editor the default, the gedit package isn't even installed. I think the IP's edit maybe didn't even go far enough, I think it's fair to say that Gedit was the default up until GNOME 42, but that it's no longer the default. This is reflected in Ubuntu's package descriptions for Gedit that go from official text editor of the GNOME desktop environment to the more recent popular text editor for the GNOME desktop environment. - Aoidh (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note here. Yes, I was aware that gnome-text-editor had been proposed as the new default text edit for the GNOME desk top and was probably soon to be approved in that role, displacing gedit. Thanks for letting me know that it actually seems to have occurred in GNOME 42. The IP's edit made no sense, as written, as GNOME only has one default text editor at a time, so adding "a default text editor" was just confusing and not correct. Either it was or it wasn't. I agree that the best solution is to indicate that gedit was the default GNOME text editor up to GNOME 41 and was then replaced with GNOME Text Editor in GNOME 42. Do you want to fix that up in this article? It is worth noting that GNOME Text Editor is a redirect back here to gedit, (I guess you know that, since you created that redirect in July) so I think we have a need for someone to write an article about the new text editor and turn that redirect into an article instead! - Ahunt (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well starting with Leafpad I've started to slowly become the "Linux text editor guy" inadvertently, but I'll take a look and see if it warrants a standalone article. I've updated the redirect for now and I'll add the wording to this article about it no longer being the default. - Aoidh (talk) 01:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * ...and you are doing a great job on those articles, too! Not to brag, but I did get the article on FeatherPad started. If you want to get the new article started then I promise to help flesh it out. There have been at least a couple of tech media reviews of gnome-text-editor so I sure we can make WP:N. Ping me with the location when you post it. - Ahunt (talk) 01:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)