Talk:List of text editors/Archive 1

Programmer's Notepad
I just finished an article on Programmer's Notepad and was wondering if i can change the links on the article to go to my wikipedia article. Note: the article is still being worked on, but it is pretty good in my opionion right now.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Charlie Da Tuna (talk • contribs) 18:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

System Default
Please don't add word processors like WordPad and TextEdit, thanks! --Minghong


 * SimpleText is almost as powerful as TextEdit - why shouldn't TextEdit be included? --Hes Nikke


 * It Should be added to keep in line with the text editor article, and because other so called text editors on this page are similar in function to TextEdit. Further debate will be on the discussions page --24.28.120.97

It may be misleading to mention a specific operating system (e.g. Linux) beside some of the desktop environments listed (e.g. Gnome, KDE, Xfce). Users can just click on the links for those desktop environments to go and see that they are Cross-platform --User:Jakewan


 * Perhaps moving those into a subsection would help - though it's also likely that would simply lead to unbounded expansion of "desktop" Tedickey (talk) 13:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Historical
In case I am missing something obvious, can someone explain the following (which I think don't make any sense): I guess I'll wait a few days before moving these around…—Gniw (Wing) 10:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Why is EDT listed as historical? There still are VMS systems in use.
 * 2) Why is sed listed as historical? It might not be used as an editor per se, but it is still in use as a filter. Actually wouldn't sed have always been used as a filter?


 * Makes sense to me; change it. &brvbar; Reisio 20:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

EDT
True - EDT is still system standart editor for OpenVMS. And not only that: if started with:  it becomes a GUI as well.

But wait: There is also  which reduces functionality to a "Line editor". And a look at the help file reveals that the GUI/full-screen editor calls himself "EVE" - "Extensible Versatile Editor". A correction is indeed needed here.

--Krischik T 08:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

What's "Graphical"?
In reading the list of editors, I've decided I can't figure out what's meant by a "graphical" editor as compared to a "text-based" editor. Does graphical mean: "An editor that operates within a GUI" while "text-based" means: "An editor that operates an ANSI or other text-only terminal/termulator"? If so, vim is in the wrong list as it will operate within a GUI. tpu may also be mis-classified and I'm sure there are others as well.

Atlant 18:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree, vim has been graphical since the very first release. It is capable of working inside a terminal also.  If "text-based" is an optional feature that vim has, then perhaps it belongs there?  Overall this page is confusing. JoshuaRodman 19:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Graphical and Text-Based
Prehaps we need a section on "Graphical and Text-Based" editors - for editors which can do both. Otherwise deciding where the place the editor when only one entry is appropiate becomes tricky. We had a similar problem at wikibooks when sorting the b:Wikibooks:Programming_languages_bookshelf. In the end we decided that we need a section "Multi-paradigmed languages" for those languages which can do more.

And it is the same here. Some of editors can do both Text and GUI. If we put them under "Graphical" (on the basis of maximum feature available) users looking for a text-mode editor will miss them - if we put them text mode users looking for a GUI editor (or dismiss text editor as boring and old fashioned) will miss them.

Neither way is perfect so a 3rd group might be needed.

--Krischik T 08:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Several editors in the list could be part of that combined group (Emacs, vim, vile, elvis come to mind). By the way, "XEDIT" is not a graphical editor, and there is perhaps no "system default" editor on VM/CMS Tedickey 12:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

vi vs. vim vs. gvim
I just moved vim up as I believe that "Graphical" takes preference over "Text-Based" (as it does for emacs) and "System default" take preference over "Free software". vim has replaced vi as system default editor on Linux systems:

>la /bin/* | grep vim lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root     3 2005-10-17 10:21 /bin/vi -> vim* -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  1.1M 2004-10-05 02:40 /bin/vim* >la /usr/bin/* | grep vim lrwxrwxrwx  1 root root        3 2005-10-17 10:21 /usr/bin/edit -> vim* lrwxrwxrwx  1 root root        3 2005-10-17 10:21 /usr/bin/ex -> vim* lrwxrwxrwx  1 root root        3 2005-10-17 10:21 /usr/bin/rview -> vim* lrwxrwxrwx  1 root root        3 2005-10-17 10:21 /usr/bin/rvim -> vim* lrwxrwxrwx  1 root root        3 2005-10-17 10:21 /usr/bin/vi -> vim* lrwxrwxrwx  1 root root        3 2005-10-17 10:21 /usr/bin/view -> vim* lrwxrwxrwx  1 root root        8 2005-10-17 10:21 /usr/bin/vim -> /bin/vim* lrwxrwxrwx  1 root root        3 2005-10-17 10:21 /usr/bin/vimdiff -> vim*

That's SuSE Linux 9.3.

Of corse: gvim can either be installed as a simple symlink- just like the others - or as seperate application. Most Linux system install them seperatly to preserve space in /bin (where the system default editor needs to be installed just in case /etc/fstab gets corupted and needs editing):

/opt/gnat Linux  krischikm@wceh00a3  Fri Jan 20 09:12:39  standart >la /usr/X11R6/bin/*vim* lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root    4 2005-10-17 10:24 /usr/X11R6/bin/egvim -> gvim* lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root    4 2005-10-17 10:24 /usr/X11R6/bin/evim -> gvim* -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 2.3M 2004-10-05 02:44 /usr/X11R6/bin/gvim* lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root    4 2005-10-17 10:24 /usr/X11R6/bin/gvimdiff -> gvim* lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root    4 2005-10-17 10:24 /usr/X11R6/bin/rgvim -> gvim*

It's not just the GUI which doubles the size, there is also python and perl support active in gvim.

--Krischik T 08:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Commercial editors
I have removed the list of commercial editors, as Wikipedia is not a directory of software and especially of commercial products. If this is contested, give your reasons here. Alcalazar 11:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. It seems rather arbitrary to exclude these editors from an article titled "List of text editors" solely based on the fact that the software is for sale.  There is current as well as historical value in information on these editors, some of which many engineers have spent the majority of their working lives using.  Would you suggest that we remove the Boeing 747 from List of aircraft by category because you can't get it for free? Dmw 14:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that by that argument ("Wikipedia is not a directory of software") this article really shouldn't exist at all, but if it does it should definitely include commercial editors--it defeats the purpose of the article to exclude them. Personally I find Comparison of text editors to be a far more useful article, and I've occasionally wondered if these two articles should be merged somehow, though I haven't been able to come up with good enough reasons to actually propose it. -- Heptite  (T)   (C)   (@)  07:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

EvolvEd
I found a new text editor, but have no idea what category it should go in. This whole page is very confusing. Anyway, it's called evolvEd, and you can find it here: evolvEd. --Tyranic Moron 17:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

se/sed?

 * se — An early screen-based editor for Unix, based on ed.

Shouldn't this be sed instead of se ? -- 84.44.153.29 10:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I suppose, I was wrong. -- 84.44.154.183 11:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Aside from the one reference in the Bill Joy interview, I've found no additional information for "se". So there is not enough information to make an article Tedickey 12:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

What should the requirements be?
One discussion I'm not seeing here is over the question of, "What are the requirements for an editor to be included here?" Should any text editor be included here? Say, for example, basically any interactive console for any language that has file read/write capability could be used as a text editor. Should that be removed? Should that be included?

My thoughts are that if a program's primary purpose is to edit and/or modify a text file, then it should be included here. There should be perhaps 2 major sections: currently being developed (should have a web page, has been updated in the last X years, etc.) and not currently being developed (may or may not have a web page, hasn't updated in the last X years). Each entry should, more or less, include a link to an editor's wikipedia entry (if any), maybe the editor/style it is derived from (Emacs-like, Vim-like, Cua-like, etc.), a link to the editor's home page (if any), a link to screenshots (if any), distribution terms (open, free(ware), shareware, nagware, commercial), and perhaps platform availability (Windows, OSX, Linux, Solaris, BSD, X11, (Posix), etc.).

Other features, like whether the editor allows collaborative editing, has a tty or GUI mode, etc., should be included on a related comparison page, if any, and a note should be included in the listing for this page.

As for the "comparisons" page. My thoughts there are that it should be removed unless it can gain some interactivity. The current page is too large to be useful, and doesn't include a large number of popular or interesting (either historically or relevant today) editors. The requirement for that page should be that the editor be included on this page, and have an applicable web page for more information or download (this keeps the comparisons to the realm of editors that could be relevant to readers).

Wikiwalk 18:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Based on this discussion over at List of Firefox extensions, which suffered from similar problems, the easiest is to remove ALL external links, and only link to editors that have their own articles. I've just done so. hbdragon88 04:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Crimson Editor.png
Image:Crimson Editor.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 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 20:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing Links
I've put back all the links that were removed from someone's previous edit. There are other articles, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figlet which link to this article as a place where users can find certain applications. I think links should only be removed if they are irrelevant or distinctly for some commercial purpose. Also, justification should be given for removing a particular link.


 * Many of the extensions in the List of Firefox extensions page are also arguably non-commerical as well, but spam is still spam, promotion is still promototion, regardless of whether the product is being sold or not. They figured out that the cleanup was best done by simplifying it to inter-wiki links, links to other Wikipedia articles.  Figlet is a great example of how it should be – just a couple of links, to its homepage, no farm of external links.  How else do you propose to reduce this spamlinkfarm? hbdragon88 22:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Pixio repeatedly adding the same links
69.27.9.66 (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly adding the same two external links every time they get deleted. I assume the Pixio (talk · contribs) account is the same person. I think this has definitely become link spam at this point. The problem is, I'm not sure what to do about it. -- Heptite (T)   (C)   (@)  17:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

ASCII Art converters
Where did they go? AkvoD3 13:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Customizable online text editor?
I'm looking for a light online text editor (no WYSIWYG) which I can customize with my own buttons and text to be inserted just like the wiki editbar can do with the Add Button Extension on MediaWiki. Sub —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.59.198.28 (talk) 22:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Adding PowerPad
Should PowerPad be added? http://quickmediasolutions.com/software/powerpad/powerpad.php 207.6.102.10 (talk) 03:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge
I believe this list is redundant due to the depth of detail found in Comparison of text editors article and by Category:Text editors. I propose this article be merged into Comparison of text editors. Please now agree or disagree. 30 days should be long enough to get a good consensus on this. --Hm2k (talk) 09:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The lists aren't really similar - this one, at least, isn't full of self-adverts. I don't find the other one useful at all, since its factual basis is very poor (except that if it were deleted, then this one would diminish in quality). Tedickey (talk) 12:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree: please remove this article, it causes only confusion. The Comparison of text editors article is much completer and much better formatted.

aside: kate is not a "basic" editor for kde, it is a programmer's editor= it recognises conditional statements and loops. It does even more than recognising, it allows you to isolate them as a subroutine. (And it probably does a lot more that I haven't discovered yet.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.231.132 (talk) 08:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comparison-of contains references to fewer editors, and like most comparison-of topics is infested with WP:OR TEDickey (talk) 08:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

System defaul
As noted in a previous discussion, some of the "system default" editors are actually default editors for a particular environment, rather than a system. Perhaps a separate list is appropriate for these. Tedickey (talk) 08:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Cream is not a text-editor
Cream is a set of configuration scripts for Vim, which is cited in the previous paragraph. Tedickey (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Adding ASCIIPaint.com
Why is the addition of ASCIIPaint.com not allowed to the ascii art text editors? It is the ONLY online ascii art editor. All the other ones require a download. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.203.152 (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no article for it, and notability doesn't appear to be supported Tedickey (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Kedit Description Correction
The description of Kedit as similar to Notepad just with spell checking is incorrect. Kedit is much more powerful than Notepad - it has intricate search/locate/change commands, among other functions (including "remember file line position") along with the KEX interprative language. It is almost identical to Xedit.

Wikinewuser201 (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

ASCII and ANSI art
ASCII art isn't topical, and none of the listed programs is a text-editor. TEDickey (talk) 23:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ASCII art is still a form of text, just in an artistic form Redbeanpaste (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not in Text editor, though changes to support your viewpoint would need WP:RS, and avoid WP:OR TEDickey (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

inappropriate source for Kate
The source given to support the statement that Kate is the default editor in KDE does not mention this possible characteristic. Rather, it only comments that Kate is part of the KDE project. TEDickey (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Given that KWrite and Kate are the only two text editors in the KDE desktop (as part of the official packages), and taking in consideration that according to this article the source of KWrite has been merged with that of Kate's, it is thus proposed that KWrite and Kate are essentially one and the same. Notwithstanding the proposal of no less than three separate sources, the totality of which were rejected by His Majestic and Most Gracious Holiness the Wikipedia Editor Known As Tedickey upon his resolve that none of the aforementioned sources were in truth supportive of the facts avowed, notwithstanding his failure to review the second source proposed, it is thus proposed that in honor of His Majestic and Most Gracious Holiness the Wikipedia Editor Known As Tedickey, a most munificent compromise may be forged. The aforementioned compromise shall aim to bring clarity, veracity, and equanimity to the Wikipedia article known as "List of text editors." In brief, the compromise shall be structured thusly: (A) That the editors KWrite and Kate, being one and the same but of varying feature sets, (B) That verily KWrite and Kate are the sole text editors in the KDE Desktop Environment, (C) That for the purposes of convenience either KWrite or Kate must be ordained the default text editor, and such a decision depends on the whims of the Linux Distribution that packages the environment, (D) That in the consideration of facts (A) (B) and (C) the designation of the default text editor for the KDE Desktop Environment shall be "KWrite/Kate." It is with humility and anticipation that I, humble user known only as 70.162.124.59, await the judgement of the council of editors. 70.162.124.59 (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Your comment regarding KWrite points to an unsourced statement. Furthermore, it's only a Wikipedia topic, which makes that an unreliable source of information. TEDickey (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Smultron
I moved Smultron from "Free Software" to "Proprietary", as the application is now only obtainable in the Mac App Store, under Apple's proprietary license.--Stefan Hartmann (talk) 13:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

web development miscast as text-editor
Coda for instance is presented as a web-development environment. That it might be able to edit text files without improving them beyond recognition is perhaps an afterthought. It's already listed as an HTML editor, there's nothing in the topic to suggest that it might be useful for any more general purpose. TEDickey (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Brackets editor
I attempted to add information on the Brackets code editor recently, but user TEDickey reverted my addition as "not topical." Does anyone here have an opinion on the criteria a text editor must meet to merit inclusion on this page? Brackets typically has 20-30k downloads per release, so it seems perfectly relevant to me... Thoughts? Ytpete (talk) 07:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * See above - Brackets is a specialized (html) editor, not a generalized text-editor. See Text editor to see that it doesn't fit here, and is not topical  TEDickey (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Couldn't disagree more. Brackets is a code editor, comparable to Sublime Text, TextMate, Notepad++, jEdit, Komodo Edit, etc. – all of which are already listed on this page. It is not purely limited to HTML: it supports 30 syntax coloring modes out of the box and is extensible to allow more. It is a desktop app, and it is not a WYSIWYG tool. I don't see anything on the Text editor page that would preclude Brackets from being considered one. Could you cite a specific passage if you disagree?


 * Further, look at the List of HTML editors page: it's divided into sections, one of which is "text editors," complete with a link to this page. (And most items in that section of the HTML editors page are indeed listed here too). So being considered an HTML editing tool clearly does not preclude something from also being a text editor. Ytpete (talk) 22:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You appear to be asserting that because a text editor can be used to produce html, that any/all of the html editors should be added to this list. Also Adobe Brackets doesn't reflect any of the (promotional) verbiage which you just wrote.  The topic itself is weak on sourcing, and beyond listing whatever features you may find on the website, most readers would probably wonder if anyone aside from its developers had noticed the features you're promoting.  If not, then there's no point in using a Wikipedia topic to further that. TEDickey (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I'm asserting that merely because a text editor can be used to produce HTML, does not make it cease to be a text editor. Can you articulate a difference between Brackets and the other code editors listed here (such as Sublime, TextMate, Notepad++) that explains why they are ok on the list while the similar Brackets tool is not? Or are you arguing that all those editors should be removed from the list also? I'm not sure what you're insinuating about "promotional" verbiage either. You argued that Brackets was specialized for HTML; I provided evidence that it supports a myriad of additional languages, as a direct counterargument. If you think I'm arguing in bad faith here somehow, I'd appreciate it if you'd be more direct and explicit. Thanks for your fast replies by the way! Ytpete (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The information is not in the editor's topic-page (keep in mind WP:OTHERSTUFF), and even if you can find it mentioned on the developer's website, my concern is that it's something that is noticed by people (WP:RS comments on the functionality is the way to go). By the way - just because it's mentioned on a developer's website doesn't make it real (recall netrik). TEDickey (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, re "You appear to be asserting that ... any/all of the html editors should be added to this list": Please note that most of the non-WYSIWYG editors on the List of HTML editors page are already on the text editors list – presumably for the exact reason I argued above, that a code editor does not stop being a code editor just because you can use it to edit HTML code. Ytpete (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * well, then a good way to improve that topic would be to remove the list of text-editors which can be repurposed to html-editor TEDickey (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I think I'm struggling a bit to follow your full argument – what is the standard you believe needs to be met for inclusion on List of text editors? And List of HTML editors? It seems like you're arguing some combination of the following:
 * The Adobe Brackets article doesn't make it sufficiently clear that this tool can edit more than just .html files. I am happy to edit the article to clarify that.
 * The categories "thing that can edit text" and "thing that can edit .html text" are mutually exclusive. Yet it seems fairly obvious to me that they are overlapping categories, and the fact that List of HTML editors explicitly lists text editors as a subcategory supports that.
 * Therefore, everything in List of HTML editors should be removed from List of text editors. Besides being contrary to the way List of HTML editors is currently written, I think most people would be extremely surprised to see Notepad, Emacs, Vim, TextEdit, Sublime, etc. all disappear from the list of text editors. You would have to basically gut one or both articles to eliminate all overlap.
 * The Brackets website is not strong enough proof that the application is what they say it is – they might be lying. This seems to be holding Brackets to a different standard from the rest of the list. For example, the Sublime Text article cites Sublime's own website multiple times, and it has no citation at all for the statement "Sublime Text is a cross-platform text and source code editor." (I don't think WP:OTHERSTUFF makes such comparisons invalid, since it rests on the possibility that bad content may sneak by unnoticed, while even a cursory glance at this article's history makes it clear you are watching it like a hawk). If I'm not mistaken, the verifiability guideline is that "material challenged or likely to be challenged" should have a citation; in my view that does not include basic, noncontroversial information about the nature of a product. (Also, note that my "30 syntax modes" statement links directly to the source code that defines the list of supported formats – not exactly marketing fluff).
 * Facts don't count if they're widely overlooked (?). I'm sort of struggling to interpret your repeated emphasis on how "noticed" a feature is...


 * So, here's my proposed course of action – which I'm happy to undertake:
 * Improve the Adobe Brackets article to clarify the scope of the tool, and its generic extensibility.
 * Add a note to the List of text editors article that some editors specialize in / favor certain formats or programming languages, even if they also support generic plain-text editing. (This is true of many editors on the list already).
 * Re-add the Brackets content to List of text editors and Comparison of text editors once both the above are done.


 * If you disagree with this please propose a clear standard for what belongs on which page, and ideally a course of action for making the existing content meet that standard (hopefully beyond simply burning both articles to the ground :-) Ytpete (talk) 04:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Back to the main thread: Adobe Brackets has exactly one third-party source, which is a year-old news items from a now-defunct website. There are no reviews of the program in use as a general-purpose text editor. Your edits amount to providing that review, and are (2 footnotes?) generally unsourced. Since most of the information relates to potential use and possible notability, in contrast to reporting the observations from reliable third-party sources, what we're discussing is the use of Wikipedia as a repository of information to promote a little-known program. TEDickey (talk) 08:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, so if I'm understanding correctly: your actual core objection is that since you've never heard of Brackets and its main article is sparse, you are suspicious that it's not widely used / notable. Is that correct? I'm happy to go find more (and more recent) citations to add to the Adobe Brackets page. Will you be comfortable with me re-adding it to the List of text editors list after that? Ytpete (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Btw, my only edit to the Brackets article thus far did not add any footnotes nor any editorial/review content, so I'm not sure what you're referring to there. You seem to again be insinuating ("your edits ... providing that review", "promote a little-known program") that I am somehow trying to sneak in non-NPOV advertising-type content here. I am not. If you believe I am, I ask you again: please come out and say so, so that we can discuss the matter directly, rather than making these indirect sort of accusations. Thanks in advance. Ytpete (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm looking for WP:RS. A comparison-of topic by its nature doesn't have space to go into depth.  For that reason, the individual topic should have all of the information (and sources...) for the summary provided in the comparison-of.  Once that's done, there's nothing to discuss. TEDickey (talk) 17:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Conversion to table
I started converting the list to a table. I found it very difficult to find what I wanted. This doesn't fix the problem but once in table form it makes it easy to uniformly add information such as OS/Desktop Environment that they are available in. I just wanted to get the list heading in that direction so that this page will (hopefully) one day be more useful to people who are viewing it with a purpose. Thanks everyone who has contributed so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.152.110 (talk) 08:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually the layout doesn't appear to be an improvement, since much of the content falls into the description column. Going that way, it'll inevitably degrade into something like Comparison of text editors.  Instead, Manual of Style/Lists offers some constructive advice on this issue. TEDickey (talk) 10:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

online text editors
Perhaps there should be a separate section in the wiki for "Online text editors"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.247.131.84 (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There's no Wikipedia topic dealing with that classification (and looking at what Google finds for the term, it's likely that a topic might be constructed as WP:OR) TEDickey (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you alluding to online rich-text editor ? --DavidCary (talk) 03:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Missing classes of text editors
There are two classes of text editors that seem to be missing 1. Mainframe editors like SPF and ports like SPF Lite 2. Mobile (Android) like Jota+ I am not sure why

ZAtlas


 * The existing content in ISPF is vague and unsourced (few extant sources to go on, and ultimately little to say). I don't see an obvious place to suggest improvement for Jota+ TEDickey (talk) 09:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

neovim
Editor's consensus was that neovim lacks notability, which implies that it doesn't merit a listing here. TEDickey (talk) 07:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Collaborative editors
None of those fit into the topic of text-editors, any more than word-processors do. Removing the list altogether would improve this topic. TEDickey (talk) 09:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. Only reason to keep the list around is as a quarantine zone/chew toy for people & companies who want to put their own obscure apps on Wikipedia. However, this text editor list page is quite good. How about moving the collaborative section to List of collaborative software? Andrew Helwer (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * hmm - that looks time-consuming: it seems (quick glance) that the collaborative editors which have articles are probably represented there, and the effect of a move would be to move debris there. TEDickey (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Sure. Best course of action looks like deletion of the section. Andrew Helwer (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * That would be easiest - either of us could do this, if we're agreed (no one else has chimed in) TEDickey (talk) 00:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Done. Andrew Helwer (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Let me know if anyone wants HMCE back on the web. bring it up at programmersheaven or wherever. 173.14.238.114 (talk) 07:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Strike that. Bring it up on irc - klys at freenode 173.14.238.114 (talk) 01:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of text editors. 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/20081014105420/http://lxde.org/lxde to http://lxde.org/lxde

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) 19:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)