Talk:Editra

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
	This article is supported by Free and open-source software.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Editra article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Sure - a laundry list of features without discussion is not much more than a crude advertisement. A useful topic would dispense with that, by sourcing WP:RS commentary on how the more interesting features are related with other things. TEDickey (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs vs Reliable sources

They're distinct. Rather than removing the maintenance templates, some followup from the topic's promoter would be helpful TEDickey (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So http://googleblog.blogspot.com, the official Google blog, would be non RS? I don't think so. Svnpenn (talk) 03:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are blogs and blogs. The one you mentioned is slightly different - essentially press releases. Not useful for this topic. Moreover, listing a project on code.google is meaningless because there is essentially no cost (effort or notability) to doing so. It's essentially an alternative to sourceforge. TEDickey (talk) 09:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources used in this topic

http://www.softpedia.com/get/Programming/File-Editors/editra.shtml is merely an advert.
http://pygments.org/languages doesn't mention this topic.
http://www.osalt.com/editra - doubtful also.
http://svn.wxwidgets.org/svn/wx/wxPython/3rdParty/Editra/THANKS - discard.
http://svn.wxwidgets.org/svn/wx/wxPython/3rdParty/Editra/setup.py - likewise discard.
http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/editra-powerful-expandable-crossplatform-text-code-editor/ - looks like an advert (a nobody promoting random tools)

http://lifehacker.com/400332/editra-brings-code+friendly-editing-to-all-platforms appears to be the only marginally useful third-party source. TEDickey (talk) 09:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

osalt is essentially a promotional site - there's no critical review whatsoever. The blurbs are largely cut/paste from other sources (generally the developer's website). The same is true of softpedia (though its aim is the associated advertising) TEDickey (talk) 10:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should step back and take some time to look at this situation objectively. The claims you are making against my article could be repeated about half or more of the articles about text editors. I created my article, in good faith, to improve Wikipedia. The program listed in my article was chosen because I believe it to be better suited to my needs than any of the many programs listed on that page.
Frankly I was shocked when I came to find the best program for my needs wasnt even listed on Wikipedia. Now I know why. People like you stifling attempts to improve Wikipedia. You made your point about notability long ago. I have made efforts to improve this articles notability; however I have been unsuccessful in slaking your demands. At this point your efforts would be better spent helping to make this article notable and improving Wikipedia as I have tried to do, rather than quibble with me over rules. Please see WP:IGNORE for more information. Svnpenn (talk) 04:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF addresses your current comment. So far, you've done nothing to address my points other than by making a personal attack. TEDickey (talk) 11:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"you've done nothing to address my points"
It is not my responsibility to do so. I have done my part to improve Wikipedia despite what you might think. If you wish to spend your time destroying my article rather than helping it, that is your business. Svnpenn (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You only receive the courtesy which you offer to others. Except on wikipedia, where people are polite in spite of your accusations. "destroying my article" is an illustration of a personal attack, not responsive to discussion. TEDickey (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The time you have spent creating a talk page and making 7 posts on it would have been better spent just going and finding one notable source. You information about notability has been well received. Please refrain from these meta discussions and do your best to improve Wikipedia. Regards, Svnpenn (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there are none. Then it would be a waste of my time. I'm still curious whether you have any. TEDickey (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

8
Svnpenn (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Advert

Blogs vs Reliable sources

Unreliable sources used in this topic