Talk:Bluefish (software)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bluefish (software). 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/20100620182148/http://usalug.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5302 to http://usalug.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5302

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Preview discrepancy

When previewing this Wikipedia page from another page, the first sentence says:

redfish is ok its mid ebsite development.

Edit: I believe this is some sort of prankster or someone who really doesn't like Bluefish. This is spam. Imclevor (talk) 22:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Sources are now from the 'list of reliable sources' provided by the Free and open source software task force

I've changed some and added many new references from the sources that are listed in the List of reliable sources from the Free and open source software task force. Compared to most other free and open source software the number of reliable references is quite good now, and I hope good enough for submission. BlauweVis (talk) 06:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Compared to other editors, the quality is now well above average

I compared the quality of the article to comparable editors (as in lightweight general purpose code editors) in List_of_HTML_editors and List_of_text_editors. In my humble opinion the quality is better than Arachnophilia, Coda_(web_development_software), BBEdit, SciTE, Sublime_Text, UltraEdit, Geany, Gedit. The quality is on par with Atom_(text_editor), Kate_(text_editor). The only editor article that is really a lot better is Notepad++. So I think the draft is ready to submit. Please let me know if you think otherwise. BlauweVis (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I saw your request for help, although the page looks good in my view I'll add some references to books that cover bluefish 2A02:C7C:CB87:700:174E:8FD8:BD6E:1FE3 (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the section on professional reviews is a bit overdone. I suggest to merge these references in the regular article and make this section smaller or remove it. Fortysix46 (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I did the rewrite, but some refrences are now duplicates and should be merged Fortysix46 (talk) 09:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

sorry for the late reaction, I was away, but you did quite some rewrite! I'll have a look at the duplicate references. But why are all edits reversed?BlauweVis (talk) 09:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to undo the rollback, it seems there is no real reason for this rollback given. I may edit some of your changes for further improvement, but in general it seems like an improvement. BlauweVis (talk) 09:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

submit?

I feel there has been a lot of new and improved references, and the article itself is also more improved, should we submit again? BlauweVis (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I'm qualified to say it's good or not - but IMHO both the article and the references have seen quite a bit of improvement. Fortysix46 (talk) 07:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I can see a few issues with the article that could be addressed, none of them should be too hard.

• Wikilinks should only be the first occurrence of the word, and could be reduced. (MOS:LINKING)
• The “Bluefish in comparison” section should be removed entirely
• “Further reading: books on development with Bluefish” should be fixed to abide by WP:FURTHERREADING
• The see also section in general needs cleanup to abide by MOS:SEEALSO
• There are a few WP:NPOV and WP:ADVERT issues here and there.
• There may be a few too many references in some places, not enough in others, (WP:BLUESKY and WP:V)

But aside from them, most things seem pretty good. Lordseriouspig 11:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions! One question though: the "Bluefish in comparison" was written on an earlier advice from another wikipedia editor - previously there was a section "professional reviews" that included links to many reviews, and the advice was to transform that into an informative overview on the strong and weak points compared to other editors (which I tried to do). So I'm a bit puzzled now, remove it completely or was my rewrite of that section inappropriate? BlauweVis (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

It was a good idea to remove the reviews section, as that is pretty much WP:PROMO, but it was really just better to WP:TNT the section. The notable ones (ones already with Wikipedia articles) such as Notepad++, could still be included under see also though. I like your rewrite of the see also and further reading section, one tiny thing though, the further reading should be external links and not references. Thanks, Lordseriouspig 13:49, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I removed the comparison section, and rewrote the further reading section with external links instead of references. BlauweVis (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

was that really necessary? I spent a lot of time writing that :-( Fortysix46 (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

sorry.. I'm working on this already for a few months. I want to get this done now. BlauweVis (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm planning to add references to the Openhub analysis of the Bluefish code. But I discovered the Openhub analysis was outdated. I requested a new analysis but I'm not sure how long that will take. But I think the article can do without an openhub code analysis reference. I'll add that later once Openhub is done with their work. Fortysix46 (talk) 06:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

An openhub code analysis reference is interesting indeed, but I guess the article is already good as it is now. So I'll submit. BlauweVis (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

done Fortysix46 (talk) 08:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The article should definitely be kept. I still use bluefish 1 for editing my files.

Perhaps the article should be reviewed from top to bottom by someone who has good writing skills, just to make it more clear and a bit more succinct too. I am not good at writing less in general, so I should not volunteer. 2A02:8388:1643:D680:C23D:D743:2A9C:ACFE (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)