Talk:Leo (text editor)
|WikiProject Computing||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Free Software / Software / Computing||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
Yes, I am the author of Leo.
Here are some external web sites connected to Leo. They are "objective" in the sense that they have existed for many years.
Leo's Google group: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/leo-editor As you can see, it is a medium traffic group.
Leo's Google Code site: https://code.launchpad.net/leo-editor/ One of Leo's users reported statistics about Leo's code base on this thread: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/leo-editor/commits%7Csort:date/leo-editor/lgHE4OJSLzw/ZSjFfrxsBPIJ On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 5:05 AM, Matt Wilkie <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: Ok, I think I've fed Ohloh a seamless history of Leo now, from 2002 to present...The Leo Editor... ... has had 15,508 commits made by 47 contributors representing 1,064,650 lines of code ...is mostly written in Python with an average number of source code comments ...has a well established, mature codebase maintained by a large development team with decreasing Y-O-Y commits ...took an estimated 292 years of effort (COCOMO model) starting with its first commit in February, 2002 ending with its most recent commit 2 days ago
In short, the project has been going on for more than 15 years and has two quite public groups. Leo's importance is not for me to say, but I expect that someone would contact me (email@example.com) before doing anything drastic with the leo-editor wikipedia page.
Let me know if you can provide any more information. Don't expect Leo to appear on 60 minutes...
Leo is mentioned in a "real" book, with a whole chapter on Leo: http://www.amazon.com/Beginning-Joomla-From-Novice-Professional/dp/1590598482/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1380681874&sr=8-1&keywords=beginning+joomla+from+novice+to+professional and here is the corresponding ebook: http://www.gandsnut.net/downloads/Beginning_Joomla!_From_Novice_to_Professional.pdf Edreamleo (talk) 09:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- For the purpose of discussion, a page number would be helpful (I don't see "leo"). However, the only editor which I see mentioned more than once is Notepad. There are other editors mentioned, but in each case, the mention is so trivial as to be useless for providing WP:RS. There are no reviews in this book, in particular of text-editors, which would be relevant to notability TEDickey (talk) 09:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Ahem. Open the pdf. Ctrl-F Leo. The page is 127/148 depending on how you count.
Here is a secondary/tertiary reference. h Yes, you have to do Ctrl-F Leo.
You will find: "Some of my favorite tools are CWEB and Leo for source code outlining." I have no connection with Daniel Mall.
> However, the only editor which I see mentioned more than once is Notepad. There are other editors mentioned, but in each case, the mention is so trivial as to be useless for providing WP:RS. There are no reviews in this book, in particular of text-editors, which would be relevant to notability
You seem not to have noticed that there is a substantial "review" of one text editor, namely Leo.
Are you a troll, or do you have something legitimate to say?
- That's a nasty comment. Calling people names is unacceptable. See WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL. TEDickey (talk) 11:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- The page number for the pdf file does help. That's one. However WP:Notability says "significant coverage". A single source amounting to 1.5 pages in a 500-page book doesn't seem to address that guideline. Also, the literate programming link isn't an in-depth review, not worth mentioning. By the way, Slashdot isn't a reliable source, again not worth mentioning. It might help if you read the guidelines to know what I'm referring to TEDickey (talk) 11:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
If you have any problem with the page's neutral point of view, please tell me exactly what it is.
Yes, I have a close connection with Leo. So what? BTW, I didn't write the article. Imo, it's about as anodyne as can be imagined. There is nothing in the article that doesn't express a simple fact about Leo. There are no opinions, no claims. Quite boring.
- If that's so, then addressing the topic issues should be trivial, particularly with your insight. The topic as written is predominantly a synopsis of Leo, which (for the purpose it's written) could have been on Leo's website: if it's done there, there's little reason to use Wikipedia as a repository of information. Introduction of jargon such as clones doesn't do much for the topic. The external-files and scripting paragraphs don't help, because (a) the treatment is sketchy and (b) a proper treatment should first point to external sources which provide a tutorial on the information presented. Giving too much detail using primary sources works against the topic. What the general Wikipedia reader is looking for is how it fits into the larger scheme of things - partly done by the outgoing links from the topic, but without the context that multiple independent third-party sources would provide. Blogs aren't that useful (unless they're for instance written by recognized authorities in the topic area - doesn't seem to be the case for the one example). The academic paper lists Leo on one line in a table of a half-dozen examples. That's not a significant in-depth review. So far, the one interesting source was the small one discussed earlier. Trimming the existing text down by say 60% and sourcing it against what others noticed in 3-4 sources would be helpful. TEDickey (talk) 08:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I see your point, and I agree with it. I myself see little value in this article. I am not very interested in rewriting it.
I am in the midst of a rewrite of Leo's docs at present, and I would prefer to concentrate on that task, rather than attempt, probably in vain, to hew to wikipedia standards that I don't fully understand.
- Well, as you find time, it would be nice to improve the sourcing for notability. TEDickey (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
One of the valuable, unexpected, developments of this conversation is the realization of how few external references to Leo there are. Leo users are constantly writing to thank me for Leo, but there are very few external references to Leo aside from the minor references we have discussed here and a couple of YouTube videos.
Leo's home page http://leoeditor.com/ now has contains the following succinct summary:
The following unusual features make Leo an unusually powerful PIM, IDE and data organizer:
- Leo is an outliner whose outlines can hold any kind of data, filed in as many places as you wish.
- Leo is fully scriptable in Python.
- Leo scripts and commands are fully aware of Leo's outline structure.
- Leo automagically translates external files to and from outlines.
The first bullet point is a non-technical way of saying that Leo outlines are in fact directed acyclic graphs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed_acyclic_graph This allows data to be organized in arbitrarily many ways within a single outline.
The third bullet point is a non-technical way of saying that Leo has a Python API https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_programming_interface that fully exposes all aspects of Leo's own source code and all the data in Leo outlines to scripts running in Leo.
These two (technical) points are, in fact, what make Leo powerful and thus notable from a technical point of view. Whether that makes Leo notable from Wikipedia's point of view seems in doubt.
I can say this on here on this talk page, but I have no idea how to say anything similar on Leo's main Wikipedia page. Any suggestions you might have on living with the "no original research" requirement would be appreciated. Edreamleo (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think that finding sources is the main thing (formatting them is straightforward). "Notable" simply means that someone (who's well-established in some verifiable role - whether it's a staff editor or an independent author) has taken note of Leo and provided their own discussion on the topic. The hard part with Leo is filtering out the 90 million false positives - but you might get something by selecting keyword combinations, e.g., leo+editor+python TEDickey (talk) 22:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Look, wikipedia, do you realize that the entire landscape of cyberspace was constructed with editors? Leo is a new type of editor and it is special. It's so special that it's hard to describe. It tries to address the same issues that emacs tries to address. Have you heard of emacs? It is older than wikipedia. It's notable. So is Leo. ...You know, it's special because it's a type of thing. Suppose you were to organize all the editors like this: Category: Editors. Sub categories: Editors with undo (200 members), Editors with syntax highlighting (100 members), Editors with video players (3 members), etc. In that categorization, Leo would be in a category by itself and I don't know what the name of it would be. If that's not notable, I don't know what is! It would be less notable if ten other editors could do what Leo does. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (August 2013)
I am the author of Leo, but did not write this article. One of Leo's users did, and that user is not one of Leo's core developers. So I think the caveat is a bit misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edreamleo (talk • contribs) 11:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- I've removed the August 2013 COI tag, in addition to adding all four of the cited reliable secondary sources, most recently today. If more such reliable secondary sources are published (not blog entries, emails, project documentation, etc.), please make a new Talk section to alert me here and I'll see if it might be incorporated. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)