Jump to content

Talk:Full-screen writing program

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Original Research

[edit]

Any parts of the text where OR is still present and needs to be improved?

Thanks

Xcek (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given your sources, it appears this is not a widely-used term, and also that you've extended the scope of the term by adding several examples. At the moment, your first link isn't working, the second doesn't support the topic, and the third's relationship to the term "Distraction-free editor" is also incidental. Overall, it appears to be a term not widely enough in use to be notable TEDickey (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added some more references. What do you think? Xcek (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The list shown in link 5 disagrees with the definition given for this topic, since it collects programs using a variety of techniques TEDickey (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After adding references, I'm not sure which reference you are referring to. Xcek (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which programs is it that you find to fall out of the given definition? As far as I can see, all of these support distraction-free writing as defined in the article. Xcek (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, link 3 presents a variety of techniques, and from the context, is apparently using the colloquial sense of "distraction free" rather than the term which is defined in this topic. TEDickey (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Same as above Xcek (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It does talk about a lot of different techniques, but also specifically about "distraction-free writing program"'s (somewhat down the page.) Xcek (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The definition given in the lede of this topic (equating distraction-free editing with fullscreen editors) doesn't match the lists noted there, since the links describe several techniques. Your definition goes well beyond any of the reliable sources. Anonymous comments in blogs don't count as reliable sources. TEDickey (talk) 10:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The definition in the introduction follows that of the article provided by [1], which is a local newspaper and thus a reliable source. Are you disputing as OR the concept of "an editor to avoid distractions", or the specific name "distraction-free editor"? Diego Moya (talk) 10:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're relying on a translation in that case, and are making an interpretation based on that. Let's get back to facts. TEDickey (talk) 10:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please answer my question so that we can discuss the specific concerns that you have? Your arguments so far are pretty vague. Diego Moya (talk) 11:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The specific name, of course - page's author is making it a more definite thing than appears to be the case TEDickey (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The name full-screen writing program was used in English in the original article, not translated. Google agrees to link this term to the same editors listed in the article. Since the Italian paper is a relevant source, we could move to Full-screen writing program as the article name. 'Distraction-free' and 'distraction-free editor' are frequently used by the other sources including the developers of these programs, so this term can also be kept in a secondary position in the article. Diego Moya (talk) 11:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure - "full-screen editor" is going to be far more commonly used than "distraction-free editor". The latter appears only from a few dozen individuals, as illustrated by the ~5000 ghits which are mostly repeats of a small number of distinct webpages. TEDickey (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you have already decided that you want to delete this page, but I must admit that I'm not fond of deleting it. Sure, the subject is not the most widely know on the internet, but still, one cannot deny the fact that editors like DarkRoom are a specific kind of editor. I have posted a great amount of sources, some more useful than others, but nevertheless, it clearly shows that the term is in USE! Try and search google for "Distraction-free editor, and check the results: Yes, google shows the programs listed in this article. Is it necessary to refer to scientific articles? But this is indeed not a scientific subject, but simply a laymans term used to describe a specific kind of editor. Go ahead and change the title if you want, but in my oppinion, distraction-free editors are indeed notable enough to be on wiki. And, about the sources, compare to the amount of sources in text editor! Yes, text editor is a much more important subject, but still theres almost NO actual sources. I think a lot of the links posted show, that the term is really actually in use. Your arguments are extremely(!) vague, and you should instead give a specific example of the problems you see, cause' I really do not think you are correct. Xcek (talk) 13:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're going about the process backwards, by listing everything that's currently being advertised as a full-screen editor and promoting the term "distraction-free editor" as if everyone is using it in the same sense. Full-screen editors have been around for quite a while, e.g,. this, which in context isn't itself that old. TEDickey (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@TEDickey, I'll take it as support to rename the article and boldly move the article. Anybody opposing the name change can revert my edit and discuss the reasons here. Diego Moya (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... Actually the most used term for this kind of editors is Fullscreen text editor. I would recommend you change the name of the article or move it to this name. The term writing program implies you (can) only use it for writing although there are also some around specifically for coding. In addition to that I even know of some people who use them to create guitar tabs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.49.240.28 (talk) 04:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Red links, etc

[edit]

It doesn't improve the topic to convert red-links to plain text. Most of the content on the current topic is both unsourced and non-notable. TEDickey (talk) 12:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Full-screen writing program. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Full-screen writing program. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Include browser extensions?

[edit]

What about a browser extension that provides a distraction-free writing environment? Open-source Litewrite is an example. Should its OS be listed as "Google Chrome browser extension"? Or should a new table be created? (I feel sure there is more than one of these. Should there be a threshold like number of users, time since introduced, average 3+ rating?) -- ℜob C. alias ALAROB 17:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Full-screen_writing_program&oldid=1202169947"