Talk:Collaborative real-time editor

message: *Making the article into a real article instead of a list is good.  Very much the best way forward.
*Please don't bold the links.  It's ugly, and it's non-standard.
*Please don't link to external sites for the insignificant software.  Especially if it's in alpha.  Most especially then.  WP:NOT a way of building brand, market share, promoting a product etc.  If a product is not significant enough for an article, but has some unique feature which demands discussion, discuss it in prose as an emergent feature.
*The industry press has been speculating on whether MS's market stranglehold will be broken since forever.  Keep it neutral and WP:CITE sources for anythign which might otherwise look like editorialising.  Or better still stick strictly to the verifiable facts (verifiable, that is, from reliable sources) and avoid editorialising at all
One last thing: if next time I look at the article it's got all those redlinks and weblinks back I will have to start throwing my weight around.  Please don't make me start whacking the article with my wikimop. Just zis Guy you know? 20:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a linkfarm tag at the top of the article. Seems like the article has expanded since, and looks like a linkfarm now.  I propose removing all external links to software website main pages as a start to cleaning up this article which is currently almost entirely unsourced. --Ronz 00:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some pointers 

message: There is already a list of collaborative editors in the List of text editors article. However, not all editors from this article are mentioned there. I suggest someone adds them to that list and removes the list in this article. A link to the list article can be added here. I'll commit these changes if I find some time.--Bernard François 09:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the contents of that section to this article, and added a  notice on that section. --Waldir 22:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: list of editors

message: I hear Google Sites is based on JotSpot. Does this mean that Google Sites is real-time collaborative editing? CortlandKlein (talk) 09:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google Sites 

message: The proper name for this article is 'real-time collaborative editor', not 'collaborative real-time editor'. In the phrasing, 'collaborative real-time editor', the adjective 'real-time' modifies 'editor', meaning the editor is a real-time editor. However, every editor is a real-time editor, so this says very little. The adjective 'collaborative' then modifies the notion of a real-time editor, which means the phrase ends up referring to an editor that permits collaboration (whether or not that collaboration is in real-time).
The proper phrase is, 'real-time collaborative editor', where the adjective 'real-time' modifies 'collaborative', to signify the collaboration takes place in real-time.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by John A. De Goes (talk • contribs) 03:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi John. First of all, congratulations on your excellent work in this article. It looks much more readable now. As to your suggestion, I'd fully support a rename, based on the pertinent points you've made. I suppose that in case there is no opposition within a few days, you can safely make the move yourself. I can do that, if you prefer. Waldir talk 13:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: name of article

message: I think the list of apps should be groupd from those with the most to least sophisticated real-time features.  Thoughts?  Ideas on what groupings to use? --Elvey (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: a sortable table. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 10:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sophistication Grouping 

message: My recollection is that Google Docs uses Mobwrite to connect users and Google brought its author on for that purpose. A different developer has implemented Mobwrite on Moodle that uses the FCK editor, making it rich text.  From experience, it takes high-speed editing of the same paragraph to get a collision in Mobwrite, but it is not character-to-character compared; I believe phrases are compared (somehow).  There is an excellent Youtube by its (highly-geekish) author giving both a good idea of how it works and how complicated this all is.--John Bessa (talk) 13:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mobwrite 

message: To have the list of current editors is very good as a reference. However, I would make a clean and delete all those that do not have a Wikipedia article (as there are several external links in the list).--Samer.hc (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning list of current editors 

message: MadEye https://madeye.io/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swestlake (talk • contribs) 01:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Collaborative real-time 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 http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20080305043453/http://office.microsoft.com/livecomm/ to http://office.microsoft.com/livecomm/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified