Talk:Sublime Text

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Software / Computing  (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software 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.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
 

Author[edit]

Very little is known about the author(s) of Sublime Text.

Jon Skinner, who seem to have no biography online, is supposed to have written Sublime Text by himself, although this is never clearly adressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.216.210.26 (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Article quality[edit]

An editor recently dumped a bunch of details into the article, and it's pretty messy at the moment. All those feature headings could probably be edited down to a few paragraphs.

I think removing the info on version 1 and replacing it with a note about the changes from 1 to 2, but I'm open to other opinions. ~ JoshDuffMan (talk) 18:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I think this information shouldn't be in a wiki article: "Current users who already bought ST2 for $59 can upgrade to 3 for $11 if bought in the 90 days prior to the announcement of Sublime Text 3 (29th of January 2013) and $30 otherwise." If some body else agrees with this, I ask him/her to remove it. maliayas (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Links in headings[edit]

There are links in many of the headings. Ref. Manual of Style,Section headings - "Headings should not normally contain links, especially where only part of a heading is linked." --Mortense (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Another reference is References in section titles. --Mortense (talk) 13:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Does the article still read like an advertisement?[edit]

The tag was added on November 14, 2012 and there have been many revisions since then. I'm not an expert on these things (which is why I'm asking here) but the article seems to be as neutral as possible given that it's about a piece of software, and the content describes the capabilities of the software. Full disclosure: I'm an avid user of Sublime Text, so I have some bias, but I'm not sure what else to add. Any other input would be greatly appreciated. DadOfBeanAndBug (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

yes - look at it from the standpoint of a regular reader, who sees lots of lists with little depth to the discussion beyond a summary description of the feature, little tie-ins to existing topics (and bear in mind that comparisons should be sourced to reviews by independent reviewers). Keep in mind that the reader doesn't want to know about every feature, but how this relates to other programs TEDickey (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Good points. I'll see what I can do to add a little depth. DadOfBeanAndBug (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
no problem TEDickey (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Similar articles, like Eclipse and Emacs, have "more encyclopedic wording and composing". Sorry, I can not "help improve it" now... But I think that the similar articles and its sections "History", "Releases", and "Architecture", shows to us typical sections that may be add here, to organize and do a more encyclopedic article. --Krauss (talk) 08:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous deletion of more advertisement[edit]

A recent edit done by User:Krauss (talk) is highly subjective, and does not add any value to the article. It has already been tried removed by an anonymous user, but User:Krauss (talk) redid the edit. I'm new to editing pages on Wikipedia, but I suggest this removed or reprashed. Timsateroy (talk) 16:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that Krauss's edit adds nothing of worth to the article - it is not even grammatically correct. I'll remove it, and if s/he persists, we can get a moderator involved. DadOfBeanAndBug (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, was only a fast edit with few words, to show two "popular competitors" (now at "see also", a better place), not for "advertisement". I thing was also a misunderstanding. The anonymous user was not very polite; so I add a comment as edit-summary, "please use login and talk page".
The linked articles, Eclipse and Emacs, have "more encyclopedic wording and composing" (see my suggestion above, at advertisement-tag discussion). The other link, IDE, is important because many users adopt Sublime as IDE, and this use not cited at article's text... But sorry, for change and "help improve it" I need do more than add few words. --Krauss (talk) 08:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Add History section?[edit]

Suggestion to add a "History" section with some information about origin, influences, business model, etc. Example:

"Jon Skinner left his job as a software engineer at Google in order to pursue a dream: to build a better text editor" ... "By early 2008 there was support for TextMate syntax files which gave Sublime Text a nice platform from which to grow by piggybacking on the already developed TextMate community. (...) Sublime Text grew while TextMate seemed to stagnate even after becoming open source (...)", http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-story-behind-Sublime-Text

--Krauss (talk) 09:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Quora isn't WP:RS. Likely the text you mention was cut/paste from primary sources. TEDickey (talk) 10:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)