Talk:Crimson Editor

My confusing edits

Just in case anyone is confused by my recent edit summary, I removed the Reviews section by mistake, when I intended to remove the Release history section. I've restored it now. Sorry about that. —gorgan_almighty 10:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Refimprove

I have removed the 'Refimprove' tag since it devalues a perfectly decent article. It should now remain out unless there is a consensus here that it is appropriate. Bridgeplayer 20:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the references in this article are far from decent. WP:RS requires references that are independent of the subject at hand in order to assert notability. It also requires that all references are "authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight.". Most of the references in this article do not fit that description.

1. The download site reviews (which includes SnapFiles, Softpedia, and possibly Channel Web) are not known for reliable fact-checking and editorial oversight. They are also all-inclusive, having no requirement of notability for inclusion. So they are questionable sources at best, and certainly cannot be used to assert notability.
2. The yahoo groups reference is completely unacceptable, as its a forum post, and therefore fails reliability and verifiability. A better news source for that announcement must be found, alternatively the paragraph could be reworded so that it doesn't need that citation.
3. The jointtech.com reference is a bit of a mystery, but there's certainly no indication that it's a reliable source per the requirements of WP:RS.
4. The "Emerald Editor" section is uncited, because a link to emeraldeditor.com is not a valid reference. That link link can be put into the "External links" section, but a different reliable secondary source reference must be found to cite the claims in the "Emerald Editor" section.
5. That leaves us with two good secondary source references (Techtree and SpeedGuide), and a reference to the features page on crimsoneditor.com. The two good secondary sources are enough to assert notability, and are the only reason that this article will survive AfD. The features page on crimsoneditor.com is fine as a primary source reference for adding content to the article once notability has been established.

In short there are only 3 good references in this article, which have not been used to cite all of the claims in the article. So the article needs improved references, hence the {{refimprove}} tag.

—gorgan_almighty 11:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have given the article an overhaul in order to fix many of the problems I mentioned above, and to bring it in line with Wikipedia standards. There is now a "History" section, which starts when Crimson Editor was made open source. I think the history of this software deserves mention, because it was a closed-source project that later became open-source. It really needs another paragraph in there to talk about Crimson Editor before it became open source. I'll leave that to someone else who knows the history of the software better than I do. —gorgan_almighty 12:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Reviews section

I have replaced the 'Reviews' section. Removal of sourced material should not take place without consensus on here. I appreciate that you are unhappy with the quality of the sources but since there is no definitive list of reliable sources it is up to the reader to evaluate them. The issues have been highlighted so the section should remain in pending the formation of a consensus. Bridgeplayer 22:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Generally article editors should be bold and make the changes they deem to be necessary (unless there's already a consensus against those changes), knowing that their changes can be easily reverted if another editor disputes them. As for the reviews section, it's normal on wikipedia for such information to be incorporated into the rest of the article body (eg. in "Features" and "Criticism" sections), rather than summarising the reviews in a separate section. As I stated in my edit summary, this particular Reviews section contains a lot of overlap with the Features section, so it doesn't really add anything new to the article.

For example, look at these comparisons:

Features section: "Crimson Editor features ..."

Reviews section: "It has been highlighted that it has a good set of features ..."

Features section: "... syntax highlighting ..."

Reviews section: "... syntax highlighting for lots of formats ..."

Features section: "... direct editing of text files in FTP ..."

Reviews section: "... and includes integrated FTP."

—gorgan_almighty 13:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Unicode

Why does it say Crimson Editor supports unicode? It does not.
For example Windows Notepad does support unicode. If I load an UTF-8 or UTF-16 file that contains for example Arabic text, Notepad automatically displays it correctly. Notepad2 displays the Arabic text if I manually select a font that contains required character set, in this case for example MS Sans Serif. However Crimson Editor does not display the Arabic text even if I select MS Sans Serif font.
--PauliKL (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You must tell Crimson Editor to open the file in UTF-8 each time. Crimson Editor does not detect an UTF-8 file automatically. --84.56.179.67 (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

How? There is no encoding options in file open dialog box. There is "Encoding type" option in "Document" menu. After I have loaded an UTF-8 document, the encoding type shows UTF-8, but the Arabic text is shown as "?????" even if I have selected MS Sans Serif font that support Arabic characters. Maybe Crimson Editor just converts Unicode to ANSI and any characters not available in ANSI charset are not displayed?

--PauliKL (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Reception

Interesting but unsourced observations moved from Reception section:

It is unclear what improvements have been made since its original developer quit, in 2004. The next release was to be in 2008, but there is no information as to what, if anything, had changed with this release. Development had been taken over by the Emerald Editor Community. It is expected that the Emerald Editor will replace the Crimson Editor when it is released. One glaring omission is its lack of an autosave feature.

Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Which is the Latest and/or Best Version to Use?

There seem to be three "latest versions":

Crimson Editor 3.72;

Crimson Editor SVN263 3.7; and

Emerald Editor.

Which one would give the best service? Which one will be best in the future? Josh-Levin@ieee.org (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Crimson Editor. 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/20070927213254/http://www.techtree.com/techtree/jsp/article.jsp?print=1&article_id=4827&cat_id=610 to http://www.techtree.com/techtree/jsp/article.jsp?print=1&article_id=4827&cat_id=610
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927033207/http://www.snapfiles.com/reviews/Crimson_Editor/crimson.html to http://www.snapfiles.com/reviews/Crimson_Editor/crimson.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 13:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)