Talk:Stevie (text editor)

Computing: Software / Free and open-source 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Mid-importance).

In 1991, it became the basis

The date was "before" then, but there are no usable records of "when" (certainly by 1990, but before that, only primary sources are available). See analysis in the vi-like-emacs FAQ TEDickey (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please make whatever changes you think will improve the article. It's a brand-new article and I would really appreciate help from others. Msnicki (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look, thanks. TEDickey (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That last set seems to address my concern TEDickey (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Thank you for the suggestion. Msnicki (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

STEVIE (no shouting)

The given sources say the name of the editor was "Stevie". There was no explanation given to change it to all capitals 20:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. This was a poor choice and should have been discussed, at least, before it was done. The original author, Tim Thompson, did put it in all caps (e.g., [1], [2]) but everyone else has consistently used only an initial cap. I believe we should use only an initial cap both because that's far more common today (c.f., WP:COMMONNAME) and because we generally discourage all caps here on WP. Msnicki (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I know what's going on. I posted a comment on Martinwguy2's talk page asking that he come discuss the move. Then I noticed his user page redirects to User:Martinwguy where he freely discloses his identity as Martin W. Guy and that he's just created an article about the almost certainly non-notable Xvi (text editor), yet another vi clone based on Stevie, for which he is the maintainer. (Most of his contribution as maintainer appears to consist of adding his name to the source files.) I'll give him another day to respond but if I don't hear a good reason not to, I'm going to undo the move. Msnicki (talk) 02:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks, and I'm sorry the move upset you. I based the change on the way Twitch, its author, always wrote its name, as credited in the xvi source. Refs:

but feel free to move it back if you still feel strongly about it.

Yes, I only maintain xvi for the original authors who are personal friends and too busy to look after it, but adding my name to everything recently, after publishing it and maintaining it for many years, I did solely because I noticed the term in the Downeys' license in the "COPYING" file, which I had been in breach of by fixing bugs and not writing that the source file was modified, which is one of their conditions.

It is significantly different from STEVIE - chris and john did a huge amount of work to flesh it out and add multiple buffers and more. For its special features see its web page or the "summary" document in the source code. Yes, despite being significantly different from the other clones, it is less well known than the huge mainline ones, which is one reason I make the effort to publish and maintain it. It is cited in Eric S Raymond's "The Art of Unix Programming" in section 15 and elsewhere. However, feel free to delete all traces of it from wikipedia if that's what the you feel is best for readers of Wikipedia.

Most of your response is on a different topic: using Wikipedia to promote your project. Instead of that, we're looking for verifiable, third-party reliable sources to determine whether it is notable. Without notability, it is not worth keeping. A one-line mention given in a source as part of a bare list satisfies none of these criteria. TEDickey (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I have just eliminated the last outstanding issue, and am on the brink of making another numbered tarball release after 2 years, I would appreciate feedback on its portability to platforms other than Linux-x86, as it should be portable to dozensa of very different platforms but I don't have a way to test most of them. Thanks for your attention and keep up the good work. martinwguy@gmail.com Martinwguy2 (talk) 09:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can ignore this comment, since it is purely promotional, and refers to future events TEDickey (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so is it STEVIE or Stevie? The page name says one thing (Stevie), and the lead paragraph and infobox say another (STEVIE). If there has been a name change somewhere down the line, the article doesn't mention it.

Given the page name, and the casing in the references list, I will change the text to Stevie. Feel free to revert and discuss here if this is incorrect - I don't need to be informed. --kingboyk (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]