Talk:Source-code editor

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Software Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as High-importance).

On 13 September 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Code editor. The result of the discussion was not moved.

"Redirect to [[Text editor == Regular users can't use text editor and most text editor user are programmers. So I don't see why there is a need for a separated page mentioning the same thing. --Minghong 10:30, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, structural languages like XML are not "source code" in the traditional sense. I used to do a lot of work with text editors, back when I was a "regular user". :) func(talk) 03:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"from Vfd== On 10 Mar 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Source code editor for a record of the discussion. —Korath (User talk:Korath|Talk) 17:52, Mar 16, 2025 (UTC)

I added a note to the list section that any additions will be reverted if they aren't discussed here first. The addition of "Kate" prompted me to do this, a SCE I have never heard of, for a development environment I have never heard of either. It seems incredibley niche, but I didn't revert it (for now). But lists like this have a tendancy to balloon on Wikipedia—people "[[spam]" the list with their pet additions, in hopes of popularizing them. So from now on, if one wishes to add an SCE to the list, I'd like it to be discussed here and agreed upong first. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:39, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for not discussing before adding. I'm new here. Kate is part of the kdebase package, and is the default editor on any KDE desktop. (If there is such thing as a "default" editor) --Ropez 19:30, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To clarify, KDE is big in Linux, making Kate more popular than a lot of the others listed.

However, Kate and some others may not qualify for a more complex reason. Is there a difference between a "Source Code Editor" and an "editor that edits text files, some of which could be source code"? If we make no distinction, someone could add "Notepad". --A D Monroe III 20:03, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree that general text editors don't qualify for the list. However, KDevelop is for software development, but has no text editor. Kate is the editing component. The combination Kate/KDevelop must qualify as a source editor, just like the editing component of Visual Studio is on the list. Whether it is "well known" is very hard to say for any editor. One way to tell is to use google search results. I tried some:

"scite" - 142.000, "editpad" - 143.000, "editplus" - 155.000, "bbedit" - 372.000, "emacs" - 3.700.000, "hessling editor" - 5.430 and finally: "kate" (obviously a lot), ("kate+editor" - 1.480.000 edit: lot of "fake" results) "kde+kate" - 184.000, "kdevelop" - 607.000 --Ropez 22:12, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I added the ISPF/PDF Editor to the list. This was one of the first, released 30 years ago, and is still the major editor for programmers on mainframe systems. Versions have been written for various PC systems, running under TRS-DOS, Linux, and Windows. T-bonham 06:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list of well known editors was supposed to be kept short. Still, people keep adding new editors that are neither well-known nor source code editors. For example, something called IntelliJ IDEA was just added. Never heard of that, definitely not well known. Before that, someone added Programmer's Notepad. It is one of the dozens of Notepad replacements that flooded market in late 90's, done by adding some wrapper code around Windows RichEdit component. Before that Crimson Editor was added. It is a simple editor that is neither well-known nor a source code editor. Then there is something called editix XML Editor, which is not a source code editor but an XML editor. Some clean-up is needed. --PauliKL (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EditiX and Lazarus do not appear to meet the stated guidelines (they're niche products). Tedickey (talk) 10:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about adding a section called something like "other editors" at the bottom which is a laundry list of all editors, and keeping only a few "most well known" editors higher on the page? 16:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Eclipse (software) is very well-known and multi-language, and should be added. 16:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.103.100 (talk)

No, Eclipse should not be here. It is not a source code editor, but a toolkit for building IDE's. --PauliKL (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it ok if i add ConTEXT to the list? ConTEXT It is a very popular editor, especially when editing Uscript —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan911 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Well-known" editors -- list order"== I changed this list to be in alphabetical order, instead of just random order. Might be better to have it listed with the most frequently used first, but that would probably lead to 'religious-type' wars. User:T-bonham|T-bonham (User talk:T-bonham|talk) 03:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I propose that we qualify the editors listed here by a precise criteria of features. To be a source code editor, rather than just a text editor, it must have most of the features listed in Comparison of text editors, subsection Programming features. --A Monroe III 1 July 2005 19:49 (UTC)

Most of the examples given do not meet that set of criteria TEDickey (talk) 09:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First paragraph okay, rather chaotic later. Suddenly goes to talk about mode-based editors etc.

I'm the first to revert spamming of articles, but I don't think my addition of SlickEdit to the list was spam (my addition of it was reverted). It's a widely used source code editor and is probably more deserving than some of the other programs in the list, such as Visual Studio, which isn't a source code editor at all, but an IDE. Don't get me wrong, I love Visual Studio, but to use it just to edit source code would be rediculous. So, I'm lobbying for agreement to allow it to be added.

While I'm at it, I'd lobby for NEdit as well. Any objections to either? — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well, there's a notice in the html comment to really keep the list short; just the typical editors for each platform. Maybe add a separate article so everyone can list his pet editor (with possibility to add an overview of features or something like that); ...--LimoWreck 19:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny--I might've been the one that added that HTML comment, but didn't see it when I added SlickEdit! Okay, I can see Visual Studio as being the predominant SCE for Windows; most Windows developers use it w/o using a seperate editor. Not a big deal, it is already in the list of text editors, so I'll leave it at that. Thanks for the response. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The list of text editors might be an appropriate place indeed, as there would indeed be a lot of duplicate information between a list of source code editors and a list of text editors... --LimoWreck 21:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about SciTE that is the best source code editor I've ever seen.

You should add it to the list.

If SciTE is the best source code editor you have seen, then it must be the only source code editor you have seen. It is just one of the dozens of quick-and-dirty editors made by adding some wrapper code around SCIntilla editing component. And it is not well known either. --PauliKL (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about those things that won't let you type/save code with invalid syntax? Is there a name for that?

For example, consider Atari BASIC. Your program was stored in a tokenized representation, possibly a parse tree. The computer did not retain the text you wrote. When you asked to see your code, the computer pretty much did a disassembly from that tokenized representation. As a side effect, this enforced a particular style of whitespace and such -- you got pretty printing every time.

Of course, only BASIC could be typed into that editor.

I think it's been done elsewhere, maybe for FORTH.

24.110.145.202 02:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is what came first in my mind, too, when I saw the talk about source code editors.

This kind of integrated editors were built-in in most home computers back in the eighties. They usually check the syntax immediately and tokenize the code, so that it is impossible to enter a syntactically incorrect line in the program. In Sinclair ZX-80, ZX81 and Spectrum, you could even enter the keywords (such as PRINT) with a single key press. I think this kind of editor is the only real source code editor. It can only be used for editing the source code. All the editors listed on this page are just text editors. And most text editors these days have features for source code editing.

-- PauliKL (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I added a brief mention of syntax-check and tokenizing to this article.

Yes, Jeff Fox talked about an editor like this for this Aha Forth system[1].

Has it been done elsewhere? Is there a more specific name for editors that do automatic syntax-checking? Is there a more specific name for editors that don't store the "original" source code, but instead display the code from a disassembly from the tokenized representation? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 04:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that at least one implementation of Open Firmware apparently does such disassembly from the tokenized Forth representation[2]. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 05:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're not as common anymore, but most of the ROM-based editors did this - to save RAM. It was also the usual case for any machine with limited memory (not just for BASIC, but other interpreted languages such as APL). To improve the paragraph, it would be helpful to shift away from the focus on specific examples (there are many more than listed) to pointing out the situations in which that scheme would be used. Tedickey (talk) 10:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"html is not "source code" ==

Some basic criteria should be kept in mind, and those are listed at the top of this topic. Editors for C, Basic, Java, even JavaScript are suitable. User:Tedickey|TEDickey (User talk:Tedickey|talk) 22:00, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

It isn't a programming language, but still source code; as good as LaTeX, XML and any config files are. --User:Demonkoryu|Demonkoryu (User talk:Demonkoryu|talk) 08:43, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

The sentence limits this to "computer programs". Perhaps you'd like to move this topic away from consensus on what "source code" means User:Tedickey|TEDickey (User talk:Tedickey|talk) 10:57, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

HTML can be considered a declarative programming language and thus constitutes source code for computer programs (e.g., web applications and web frameworks usually have HTML source code). Special:Contributions/50.53.1.33|50.53.1.33 (User talk:50.53.1.33|talk]) 07:13, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I have fixed the page. It had excessive examples and was becoming "List of source code editors". I also added a new section in the same edit. 203.97.127.101 (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you create a list article ? May be welcome. Yug (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The linked topic for Atom in particular has no sources that demonstrate that it is "well-known". Rather, it has a weak source for notability, and normally would be deleted outright. TEDickey (talk) 08:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atom is a widely-used code editor as per [3] [4]. I suggest to remove the “dubious” suffix in the article. -- Molily (talk) 09:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neither one of those is a reliable source. You may as well use Wikipedia. For both, the content is (a) largely contributed anonymously and (b) both have a lot of conflict of interest. TEDickey (talk) 23:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its notability is easily substantiated by:

• Nestor, Marius (October 11, 2016). "Atom 1.11 Hackable Text Editor Released with Image View Improvements, Fixes". News. Softpedia. Retrieved 2016-10-12.
• Krill, Paul (August 3, 2016). "GitHub Atom 1.9 picks up speed, drops API". Javascript. InfoWorld. Retrieved 2016-10-12.
• Novet, Jordan (March 28, 2016). "GitHub's Atom text editor hits 1 million monthly active users". Dev. VentureBeat. Retrieved 2016-10-12.
• Novet, Jordan (June 23, 2015). "Facebook open-sources its Nuclide IDE based on GitHub's Atom text editor". Dev. VentureBeat. Retrieved 2016-10-12.

I added these as references and removed the dubious tag. 50.53.1.33 (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can make whatever assertions you want; some of them could be based on facts. But without facts, there's nothing to discuss here. TEDickey (talk) 08:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You questioned notability. The fact is those references substantiate notability (unless you are questioning the veracity and/or notability of Softpedia, InfoWorld or VentureBeat as sources; but please discuss the notability of those on their own article talk pages thank you). What other facts are you concerned about? Or are you wanting to discuss how facts themselves are defined? 50.53.1.33 (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added some of the removed editors as they were notable enough to be in Wikipedia and they met the bar as being source-code editors and not just general text-editors (i.e., having a significant portion of the feature set mentioned at Comparison of text editors#Programming features):

• Atom (which was already discussed above at #population of example farm)
• Brackets
• Light Table
• Sublime Text

I now consider these to be discussed on the talk page here, so please do not remove them without further adequate discussion (but please do add your comments as we want the article to be the best it can be of course). Thank you. 50.53.1.33 (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Per BRD, I've reverted the re-addition until consensus is reached.)

Having a WP article is definitely not sufficient for inclusion; otherwise the list would have hundreds of entries.

What we need are sources stating their very significant notability equal to or in excess of those already listed. Without that, they must be removed. Sources? --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only one in the entire list which had such source information you removed (Atom). By that argument, the entire list should be removed save the one that had sources. I am all for adding such source information, however, I also do not think everything that does not have a source needs to be removed either. Currently you are arguing for source information for a few popular items while other items in the list have none (which seems very unbalanced). 50.53.1.33 (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True, we lack sources; we have the list as-is only because it's the long-standing consensus. Basically, EMACS and the like are old. To add something after this, we need to go beyond this (low) standard. Should be easy, right?

Sources stating an editor is used isn't enough, or we're opening the door for the list to grow endlessly. Instead, we need sources that indicate it's notability equal to or above the current list. If for some reason that can't be done, then we can't say there's known harm in leaving newer things off the list.

Remember the purpose of the list: to give the reader a tangible idea of what a source code editor is. A long list obscures that purpose. --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying I need sources to remove material now? And just where should I put such sources? I never saw any consensus (long standing or otherwise). Please provide (links to) the discussion resulting in this consensus you speak of. Thank you. 50.53.1.33 (talk) 05:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I a quick search of "best source code editor" on Google and found some great lists (I have not yet done the work to vet them for veracity and notability etc. so I have yet to provide them here). Not a single list mentioned EMACS (though it was mentioned in a user comment on the bottom of one list). How do I go about removing EMACS from the list on this article (since it seems you do not want to allow such to be removed) based on these references (once I get them organized). Thank you. 50.53.1.33 (talk) 05:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sources supporting significant notability would be good.

Note that "best" has nothing to do with notability here. "Popularity" would be somewhat better (when combined with longevity), but I haven't found RSs for this. Extending that with "influential" would be excellent -- being the basis for other source code editors, or contributing to the development of software engineering.

Emacs certainly isn't a joy to use, but it's fundamental and influential, perhaps the first source code editor. This is similar to how Fortran, Cobol, and Algol are listed in computer language articles.

--A D Monroe III (talk) 17:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide sources that support your argument that Emacs is fundamental and influential. Being first does not specifically make it notable. XEDIT is also an early source code editor that was influential in its day but is all but forgotten today. Thank you. 50.53.1.33 (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The current list is the current list. Is there a specific argument why Emacs is not notable? Or is the WP:POINT that the whole list should be deleted? Would that improve the article? --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to disrupt anything but I really do think the entire list should be rebuilt with notable references, including Emacs which I do not believe merits the notability bar for a popular source code editor (especially in light of much more popular ones). Is there a reason to not remove it pending good notable references? I have called it into question. I believe that means it should be removed or sufficient references be added. Thank you. 50.53.1.33 (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calling something into question, but providing no sources, isn't evidence. If there's something beyond an editor's opinion that applies to Emacs but not the others, that could be a separate discussion, but it doesn't apply to this discussion. This discussion is about criteria for the list of examples. Again, changing the list requires RSs indicating high notability. Are there any? --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Currently there are no Jetbrains editors - popular examples include Webstorm, PHPStorm, PyCharm. These are very popular. IntelliJ IDEA Ultimate is sort of the flagship product. Thoughts on adding one of these editors to represent Jetbrains? II | (t - c) 08:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC) II | (t - c) 08:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a different topic for IDE's. This topic (which is now little more than a list of promotional links) started as source-code editors TEDickey (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you are a software or web developer, you will certainly know that Atom (Atom.io) and Sublime Text are two of the very most popular source-code (or text) editors. They MUST be included. I have therefore added them. Stephen Karakashev (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"MUST", why? How is the article improved by their names in a list? We need sources to change the list, not editor opinions. Reverting, per existing standing agreement, at least until some consensus is reached here. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 22:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Atom, Sublime and Visual Studio are currently the dominant actors of the industry yes. Must be added. Yug (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The major players operating into Text Editor Market include: Visual Studio Code, Notepad++, Sublime, Brackets, UltraEdit, Atom." -- Global Text Editor Market By Product Type (Cloud Based, Web Based) And By End-Users/Application (Large Enterprises, SMEs) Global Market Share, Forecast Data, In-Depth Analysis, And Detailed Overview, and Forecast, 2013 - 2026, https://www.apexmarketsresearch.com/report/global-text-editor-market-by-product-type-cloud-468736/

I added them all. Monroe, thanks to not revert duly sourced content. You are also required to disclose any conflict of interests if you have any relation with Visual Studio and associated companies. Yug (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'am uncomfortable to bump into the current practices on this article. The current "no addition without prior discussion" is OPPOSED to Wikipedia core values of successive additions, discussions, consensus building. Scanning the talkpage, I see :

• the article was described as 'spammed' by irrelevant text editors back in the early 2010s.
• A D Monroe III's Revision as of 2017-07-05T17:35:11 arbitrarily reduce the list, including by :
  • arbitrarily removing : Atom^[1], Sublime^[1], UltraEdit^[1], Bracket^[1]. Atom was the only one covered by references. The four are today (2020) cited among "the 6 major players"^[1].
  • arbitrarily keeping : Notepad++^[1], Visual Studio^[1], Gedit, EMACS, etc. based on NO source, but the single appreciation of the editor.
  • the list had zero references, zero citation supporting the notoriety of its items selected by and protected by A D Monroe III. PS: conflict of interests.
• on addition of new items to the list is forbidden
  • successive editors have argued to add well known text editors, but have been reverted by authority. The core status quo argument is stated by A D Monroe III on 2017-08-12: The current list is the current list. Is there a specific argument why Emacs is not notable?).
  • editors are reverted by A D Monroe III, then forced into time-consuming and vain arguments to be allowed to do edits of few characters in, or pass a criteria that no existing (selected by Monroe III) item actually pass : provide an explicitly supportive source
  • additions suggested are now demonstrated to be relevant^[1]. cc:
    • Stiphan1 : added Atom^[1], Brackets^[1], Light Table, Sublime Text^[1], was reverted by authority (A D Monroe III).
    • 50.53.1.33 : added Atom^[1], Sublime Text^[1], was reverted by authority (A D Monroe III).
    • Yug : added CodeMirror (dominant cloud editor), was reverted by authority (A D Monroe III, Revision 2020-01-27T21:15:33 "[...] all addition without discussion are deleted").
• on removal: removal of existing yet unsourced items is, on the contrary, forbidden
  • A D Monroe III weirdly twisted that currently unsourced items must be kept unless prof of non notability is provided (2017-08-12: The current list is the current list. Is there a specific argument why Emacs is not notable?). Also know as "prove me that something is not something".
• Editor A D Monroe III has therefor :
  • de facto created and maintained a different standards of inclusions between items of his selection, and items suggested by others.
  • systematically pushed the burden of proof (sources) on other, while protecting his content without such burden (unsourced ok there)
  • in action prevented several legit edits and users, one after another, to edit the [his] arbitrary list.
• the current situation seems a case of legit issue (avoid spamming) which as get out of control and into an excessive control, or WP:OWN:

This page in a nutshell: No one "owns" content (including articles or any page at Wikipedia). If you create or edit an article, others can make changes, and you cannot prevent them from doing so. In addition, you should not undo their edits without good reason. Disagreements should be calmly resolved, starting with a discussion on the article talk page.

A normal wiki situation would allows all parties equal rights on the article's list, be it for addition or removal. Everyone has blind spot, and knows only a part of the field. Wikipedia is best when all can add their part to the common knowledge storage units that are article.

Alternatively, if an acceptation rule must indeed be set up, I suggest to accept only editors with sourced notability, materialized by a credible reference, and to remove all non-sourced items from the list. Yug (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yug; First, I welcome the attention you bring to this long-running issue, including examining the history of my and other editors here; this is all commendable.

But you are apparently framing a lot of your arguments upon my motivations. This includes describing my edits with "arbitrary", "by authority", "double standard", OWN, etc. You don't know me, nor my motivations. If you think I've actually demonstrated bad faith, for the good of WP you should really take it up on one of the drama pages, not scatter them in some obscure talk page, forcing me to respond to these apparent accusations to avoid my fear of the well being poisoned, thus wasting everyone's time and derailing the discussion, to the detriment of the article. In my experience, you'll get more support for your views if you avoid any hint of attacking other editors in your comments.

For the good of better presenting your views on this issue, I suggest that you edit the opening post to remove or strike of what I perceive as apparent slips of AGF. If you do so, I'll gladly remove all my comments here and above from this discussion, in order to have all editors focus solely on improving the article. Failing that, I urge you to at least not spend any effort to repeat, continue, or defend them, and simply avoid hinting at my motivations. Seriously, none of this helps the article. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 19:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the current situation as I see it.

• Having a short list of example source code editors helps the reader.
• We currently have such a list.
• The list isn't justified by sources.
• We need some guideline to qualify adding to the list, or it will become bloated and useless.
• The current guideline, just "leave it as it is", is short-sighted, unsatisfactory, and ultimately unsustainable.

Agreed? --A D Monroe III^(talk) 19:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Monroe, given you used against 3 editors a decision making process visibly asymmetrical and in your favor, given I have the wiki experience to dig up quickly the situation, which other editors can't always do, it was a good choice to document the history of this weird no additions without discussions rule. Conscious or not, asymmetric edit war is one of the dirtiest methods to push away other wikipedia editors.

Having done that, yes, need to work out an alternative long term solution so this article keeps a balance. Source is best, consensus is good too : when several users come to add something, there is likely something to fix. Criteria could help as well : popularity then and now (now=state of the art), innovative value, representative of a type, and set an approximate max length for the list. Yug (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you've read (and ignored) WP:NPA in constructing this essay. Might be a good time to read the policies that you don't agree with TEDickey (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA: "Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links."  Done.

Please open a section, cite the exact chains of words which don't pass the WP:NPA criteria, I will examine, remove the violations to NPA, and present my apologizes to the offended party. Yug (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. How are personal accusations helpful for this issue? All they do here is waste everyone's time, and actually distract from improving the article. If supported by evidence, the accusations belong on one of the drama boards, not an article talk page.

On the actual subject of this discussion, the example list, since no one found the bandwidth to disagree with my stated assessment points, I'll take that as a tacit agreement enough for the next step: fixing the problem.

Although it's hidden in the vitriol, Yug has brought a source that could be used to evaluate the most popular SCEs. I consider this a breakthrough. I propose we rewrite the list using that source, keeping it to about a dozen. Agreed? --A D Monroe III^(talk) 23:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yug, I don't see that this process is "visibly asymmetrical and in [A D Monroe's] favor"--and I will add that it assumes that A D Monroe has some special interest here for which they bend article content in their favor. As a violation of AGF, that is really a personal attack, just to make that clear. "Source is best, consensus is good too"--well, nothing will happen without sourcing, and nothing will happen if there isn't consensus on the sourcing criteria. You can't list them like that as if they are on some hierarchical scale. They are not; both are required, but both take place in different spheres. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The current "History" section chooses a few popular examples which aren't close to covering the historical sense of this topic. In doing so, it misleads the reader TEDickey (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I started the History section and I completely agree that it is not very good right now. I added the Expand Section Template. Do you think we still need the NPOV template? Squidroot2 (talk) 01:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review reliable source guidelines versus polls and the like TEDickey (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What if it was reworded to make it clear that the claim is simply that those editors were at the top of Stack Overflow's Survey and not that they necessarily are the most loved editors? Squidroot2 (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia topics are supposed to be summarizing information gathered and analyzed by knowledgeable people (that's the point of reliable sources). Gathering and selecting things in that way makes the Wikipedia editors into authors TEDickey (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes sense. Thank you for your patience in explaining this; as I'm sure you can tell, I am new to contributing to Wikipedia. I have removed the statements that were based on Survey Results. Squidroot2 (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

no problem. Polls tend to be self-selecting, and biased. TEDickey (talk) 10:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also a bit confused about the editing practise of this article. I added "Theia IDE" as an example to the list (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Source-code_editor&oldid=1273062752). The first time this change was reverted and the reason given was that reliable source are missing (I only added one). => fine The second time I added three independent sources and this time my change was reverted with the comment "not topical, because this is not a text-editor, but rather an add-on configuration to an existing editor already listed"

"this is not a text-editor" => It actually is, and the article is about "source code editors"

"rather an add-on configuration" => I am not sure what this means

"to an existing editor already listed" => Also not true, I do not know which editor this should be.

User:Tedickey, could you please clarify and tell me which sources prove your statement? IndianaJonas (talk) 12:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rather simply disagree, providing specific examples where the existing topic has reliable sources present in Theia IDE demonstrating the point. That looks hard, given that you're using a redirect to a topic which at most mentions editor in passing only twice, and isn't devoted to the topic that you've linked. As written, that topic presents a version of Eclipse, which is already linked in this topic. Since you're the editor who wants to add the material, it's up to you to justify it. TEDickey (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response.

The particular statement you have made and now repeated is: "that topic presents a version of Eclipse, which is already linked in this topic"

This is not true!

Theia IDE is not a version of Eclipse! I would like to know why you think this is the case?

About your other concerns: All three sources describe very clearly that Theia IDE is a source code editor, even though the word "editor" is not particularly used often. IndianaJonas (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The place for adding (and validating) sources would be in the linked topic, which for whatever reason you have refrained from doing. TEDickey (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just seeing if you think this appropriate, I just realized that source would be back to back and it seems less appealing. Wikideas1 (talk) 06:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]