Contents

Talk:Emacs

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Emacs article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 730 days

	Emacs is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 4, 2004.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 3, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted November 12, 2006 Featured article review Demoted
Current status: Former featured article

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy editedbyDementia13, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on Jan 14, 2013.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles Linux Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux 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.LinuxWikipedia:WikiProject LinuxTemplate:WikiProject LinuxLinux articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. 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 High-importance). This article is supported by Early computers task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as High-importance).

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[SWI-Prolog#PceEmacs|PceEmacs]] The anchor (#PceEmacs) has been deleted. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

How is it that 2/3 authors have their photographs on the page? It seems appropriate to have all three or none. 209.161.228.135 (talk) 01:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

who is the third author? The article says there are two authors. both their pictures are present. there's even a picture of another developer who implemented EMAXlCS somewhere. 2601:547:B04:1D9E:D8C2:395C:9519:8266 (talk) 02:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at the Google output when you google for "emacs" or "vi" -- in both cases, they suggest you meant the opposite, almost correcting you. Obviously, intentionally. I find this really funny, and maybe we may include this joke here as well, for the sake of The Editor War and increasing reader's mood 95.165.149.179 (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The section is large, and it has multiple cites. There are multiple problems, however:

• The first cite no longer exists; even archive.org has no copy (though I can't say that with certainty; for some reason archive.org scans the page endlessly, without results; I only did a random sampling)
• Few of the sources could be characterized as reliable. Most of them link to EmacsWiki. A lovely site, but wiki's are user-generated content, and only very rarely acceptable as a reliable source.
• Last, and most important imho, is that wikipedia is not a "howto" site. Most of the entries are prescriptive; that's not what the article is here for.

I would propose just removing the entire section. Lest there be any misunderstanding, I use emacs every day, and have done so since the 1980's. It's my editor of choice. I have suffered emacs pinky at times. But it's not such an enormous issue that we need a nearly entirely anecdotal section dedicated to it. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]