Talk:GNU Emacs

message: Is emacs unicode compatible/aware?
The article does not deal with unicode, when GNU emacs is a text editor and unicode is for common world text? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.41.137.29 (talk • contribs) 
:Better now? --maru   (talk)  contribs 20:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unicode 

message: This article contains less information about GNU Emacs than the Emacs article does.  It is small, is almost entirely made of duplicate content, and there are no signs of it improving.  GNU Emacs is by far the primary implementation of Emacs, so that article is therefore talking about GNU Emacs anyway.  If the Emacs article is seen as being too big, maybe elisp should be factored into a new article, but that's an "if" for future consideration.  Any objections to a merge into Emacs? Gronky 09:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is a disaparity in coverage, then fix it. If we can't even get agreement that use of GNU Emacs is greater than that of Xemacs, then I hardly think one can get consensus that GNU Emacs = Emacs for most people. --maru   (talk)  contribs 20:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But we did get consensus that the use of GNU Emacs is greater than XEmacs - in the above section. --Gronky 21:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. You and I agreed that GNU Emacs is used more. That doesn't automatically translate to consensus, and certainly not to a consensus to swap the Emacs and GNU Emacs articles. --maru   (talk)  contribs 21:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that 2 in favour and none against, with a six month comment period, was consensus - but these are details of a tangental point.  I just realised that we're not discussing the same thing.  I'm not proposing "GNU Emacs = Emacs" or that the two articles be swapped.  I'm proposing that the small amount of unique content in "GNU Emacs" should be merged into "Emacs".  The "Emacs" article will still be about "Emacs" in general.  The only difference will that it won't avoid mentioning "GNU Emacs".  If GNU Emacs is to remain a seperate article, then fleshing it out will only mean further duplication of the content of the "Emacs" article. Gronky 10:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  I believe this article should just redirect to Emacs.  Let Emacs cover both the RMS maintained editor (as the bulk of the article), and brifly cover the various forks and immitations.  The forks and immitations should still have their own articles as well.  I believe there is consensus, even among XEmacs developers, that the RMS's maintained editor is the base reference for what an emacs is.--Per Abrahamsen 17:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge into [[Emacs]]? 

message: After this blog post was published, the Emacs team actually included the reworked icon in their recent GNU Emacs 25.0.50 nightlies. I'm not sure if we should already replace it in the article, I just suggest you to keep an eye on that. Tuxman (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Emacs 25 has reached pretest, might be a good idea to replace it. Zackp30 14:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emacs has a new logo 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on GNU Emacs. 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/20070306033256/http://ourcomments.org/Emacs/EmacsW32.html to http://ourcomments.org/Emacs/EmacsW32.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120216081734/http://www.meadowy.org/meadow/pukiwiki-en/ to http://www.meadowy.org/meadow/pukiwiki-en/
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) 22:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on GNU Emacs. 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/20130703203143/http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/emacs-lisp-intro/ to https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/emacs-lisp-intro/
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) 16:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Does it make sense to keep "Preview release" information once the stable release it out? For instance, currently, stable release = 26.2 and preview release = 26.1.92. In general, one expects that preview release applies to what will be the next stable release, not the previous one. Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 10:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preview release 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Magit. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 7#Magit until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Tea2min (talk) 10:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Magit" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The History section of the article says "GNU Emacs was later ported to the Unix operating system," but there is nowhere in the article states what operating system it was originally written for. This is information which should probably be included.
Enteedee (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be the Incompatible Timesharing System. Ghettoblaster (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original operating system in the History section 

message: Right at the top of the article is a quotation saying <<GNU Emacs has been called "the most powerful text editor available today".[5]>>. I have no personal opinion on whether it is or it isn't (in the words of Kip Dynamite, "like anyone can even know that"), but the quotation it references is from 2005, and for software, 17 years ago doesn't really qualify as "today".  Additionally, the quotation is from a press release for the book "Learning GNU Emacs, Third Edition", so it comes off as marketing-speak that seems like it shouldn't be in an authoritative wiki article IMO.  Is there a more recent quotation or factoid that would be more appropriate?
Kenahoo (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I came here to say the same thing. As well, the entire lede seems a bit insecure in its slightly desperate insistence on the awesomeness of GNU Emacs. Fwiw, I'm #TeamEmacs in the tiresome Emacs-Vim rivalry. Even so, this lede is too much. -- ℜob C. alias ALAROB 20:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most powerful *today*? 

message: The table in the release history section has a legend that indicates that red means "Old version", yellow means "Older version, still maintained" and green means "Latest version", but none of of the releases in the table actually use those colors. All of the releases are gray. It would be nice if the colors were used. I went to this article specifically because Wikipedia often makes it easy to see which versions of a particular piece of software are still supported. BootOutMoot (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm having difficulty finding any sources on which old releases are still receiving maintenance patches. If you know where we can find that information (from a reliable source!) we can certainly put the colors back. Otherwise, I think we should remove the legend. StereoFolic (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tentatively removed the legend, but we can easily put it back if we find a source for this information. StereoFolic (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing colors in the release history section