Template talk:HTML editors

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Software This template 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 This template is supported by WikiProject Software. Internet This template is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet 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.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet

Per HTML editor#Text editors, the bare minimum for something to be considered an HTML editor is syntax highlighting. Editors such as Scintilla, Notepad2, Notepad++, et al. should be included here for that reason.
--Gyrobo (talk) 14:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support! By all means go ahead and add them all. I agree. We have consensus; weep the tears of joy or something. (:LOL:) Fleet Command (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our consensus was all of them; but you added only Scintilla-based. A lapse of memory, perhaps? Fleet Command (talk) 07:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Froala Editor's custom license definetly doesn't qualify as free software or open source. It should be removed from the open source section. --Pelle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.182.54.78 (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to add Sublime Text to this template and it got removed. As Notepad2 and Sublime Text both have wikipedia pages, they should be added to this template. --desbest (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sublime is fine, just a minor technical issue with the edit itself, so added it again. — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 22:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A recent anon-editor insists on adding a link to a program which doesn't have a topic and doesn't appear likely to pass scrutiny on creating an appropriate topic, because all of the apparent sources for this program are advertisements by its developers TEDickey (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the link per WP:EXISTING. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:57, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]