Talk:vi (text editor)

That's Cholmondeley pronounced Vee Eye

"The name vi is pronounced..." it says. I have used Vi for the last seventeen years and I don't believe I have ever heard it pronounced Vee Eye no matter what Eric Raymond wrote in two of the references provided in the article. I don't really care how people pronounce it but it is so annoying in Wikipedia articles when editors try to impose their vision of the world on the rest of us. No doubt Vim should be pronounced Vee Eye Em... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.233.172 (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

How is that different than you trying to impose your vision of the world? Simply find reliable sources giving alternate pronunciations. tedder (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

vee eye is the common, but not exclusive, pronunciation everywhere I've worked, although oddly vim seems to be most often pronounced as the single syllable "vim". -- Autopilot (talk) 01:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I used to be a software developer. First time I was in charge of a multi-person project, I named the project using a term from some American SF-author´s novel. Sort of like a clockwork orang/orange insider joke. I never told anyone the solution of my own joke. I feel the need to tell you about the kind of mindset I have to presume in other developers: Are you aware of the existence of Romam numerals? When Knuth insist on the x in Tex to be pronounced as the Greek letter chi, he´s building up the punchline for the vi-joke; he wants programmers to have rudimentary knowledge about the Green and Latin symbols used in mathematics. This leads us to Uncle Kenny and the tea age eggs eleven eighty seven mentioned at the end of 'Last Friday Night' music video. Easter egg(s) never ever marked the spot: South Park season 10 episode 12 explained, the guys from Room A113 have been waiting for years for some outsider to figure out their little pun: What term did Hollywood invent as their synonmy for conspiracy theory? Area 5 1, quinque unum.

Unfortunately, there are no references regarding the idea of first coming up with a pun, then inventing some pseudo-explanation for the use of that pun word; except for possibly Lover Come Back (1961 film) and a connection between the Intel i5 processor and its codename.

Have you ever wondered why people bother with hiding easter eggs? It seems to be so much easier to just put them on the breakfast table. In order to create an easter egg, step 1, you have to think of a pun. Step 2, you have to invent some bogus explanation for using the pun, as a distraction: When you use the pun word, people ask about its meaning. If you give them a red herring answer, they stop asking. Until you provide a seemingly more reasonable explantion. Eg, before the age of the internet, there used to be a concept, Citizens Band, cb. Then you think about ways of transferring this concept into the information age. Then you look at the keyboard in front of you, and wonder: the key between c and b, how do you called it? When trying to decode other people´s puns, you have to guess their reasons for creating that easter egg: If you want the cooperation of other people for a project, you need to avoid the image of being selfish and arrogant; if your signature is too evident in that project, you failed. If you find a sufficiently cool way to hide it, if you do it in a way that prevents you from ever being able to convincingly prove the existence of the signature, then it just might word. So, isn´t a triple x not just sort of an extended form of a double x?

So, let´s talk about the Elvis-Lives-Conspiracy. Elvis, his songs, his ideology, became more respected after his supposed death. Do those people who support Elvis mostly want to profit from 'I am like Elvis/support me'. How much of their own money/image/ideological-cleanliness are people actually willing to risk in order to keep the idea alive that Elvis just pretended his disappearance in order to find out how the public responds? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4DD7:C4DB:0:20F2:4C91:FF53:2DF2 (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Please note that the pronunciation "vee eye" is not proven to be prevailing by any sources given. They merely suggest that the authors of a few books prefer "vee eye". Autopilot, perhaps you should actually examine the "reliable sources" you attempt to appropriate for your particular viewpoint. 115.64.159.41 (talk) 11:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

xvi

xvi is a very small cross platform editor which might deserve a mention. You can find it at https://martinwguy.github.io/xvi/ and it's still maintained. 2001:985:d04c:1:a71:90ff:fe2e:dc90 (talk) 11:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

traceable to Bill Joy?

The explanation given in the editor's comment was unclear. Offhand, the source went to AT&T with Horton, and the AT&T source ultimately (through many developers) became what's on AIX, HP-UX and Solaris (though the last provides vim in the most recent releases). TEDickey (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe Nvi is a good example here? The source code can not be attributed/traced to Bill Joy because the point of Nvi was avoiding license issues.

On the other hand the phrasing "Some current implementations of vi..." complicates things because for Nvi might be an implementation of the 'Concept'/specification of Vi but not of the original Vi editor. Moikvin (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

edit not supported by reliable sources

There's no reliable sources for vi written by "Mary Horton" (aside from some primary sources which aren't usable here) TEDickey (talk) 23:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Is your concern that Mark / Mary Ann Horton didn't work on vi, or that Mary Ann Horton isn't the same person as Mark Horton? Both of these seem to be supported by https://www.usenix.org/system/files/login/articles/spring20_09_horton.pdf. Dan Bloch (talk) 00:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The source you're citing is written long after the events occurred, and isn't really relevant to the ~40-year-old sources which document the work. There's nothing that I could use, at any rate TEDickey (talk) 01:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The question isn't what source was cited, it's what sources exist. New reliable sources consistently refer to her as Mary Ann Horton, even when describing her work done under an earlier name. This is exactly what WP:NAMECHANGES asks us to consider. You can't cherry-pick to say this is the only article about her work on vi, therefore we can ignore how she's referred to in newer sources describing all the rest of her work in that same period. Msnicki (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gender_identity Irrelevant. Wikipedia style, as well as basic respect for trans people, dictates otherwise. Her name is, as a point of fact, Mary Horton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.197.195 (talk) 01:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree. WP:Gender identity strongly supports using Ms. Horton's preferred name. It states, "When a subject changes names as part of coming out as transgender, it is often impossible to continue to use that person's former name without misgendering them and thus causing harm as discussed in #Self-identification and #Transphobia.'" Msnicki (talk) 13:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I support treating Ms. Horton with basic human respect and referring to her by her preferred name. To do otherwise seems unnecessarily rude. Msnicki (talk) 01:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

However, it's debatable whether that follows the guideline in WP:NAMECHANGES. For this topic, almost all sources (except for the previously mentioned primary sources), use the older name. By the way, your comments about rude are off-topic, there's no need to insert promotional comments. TEDickey (talk) 09:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

My point is that it's disrespectful and mean-spirited to refer to a transperson by their old name. When people do that, it's often motivated by animus. Whether that was the motivation in this case is irrelevant; this is what the behavior communicates and we shouldn't do it. Moreover, I find the guidelines you cite to support using her current name. Exactly one source is cited that was written before the name change. But new sources, e.g., in The Daily Beast, clearly refer to Ms. Horton by her current name. From WP:NAMECHANGES, "If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match." This should not be a hard choice. We should be respectful and refer to her by her preferred name. Msnicki (talk) 12:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy on this is "Use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis", which doesn't help much but is a reminder that there's no general agreement. (WP:NAMECHANGES is only about article titles. WP:Gender identity is an essay and not policy.) Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity, which is also not policy but which is a draft policy and could some day become policy, suggests something like "Mary Ann Horton, then known as Mark Horton". Could everyone live with that? Dan Bloch (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

No. This is only an incidental mention of Ms. Horton. We're reporting her contribution and that's all that's important. There is no reason to call attention to completely irrelevant personal details of her name and gender change years later in an article about vi. This has nothing to do with vi. We have a WP:BLP about her titled Mary Ann Horton that explains things for anyone who's confused in the first seven words. For me, the name chosen as the title of the WP:BLP pretty much settles the matter of whether we should use an individual's current or former name to refer to them here and elsewhere on Wikipedia. If you disagree with that choice, I think the BLP talk page is the place to take your argument, not here. Msnicki (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

At this point there's general agreement that Ms. Horton be identified as such. The issue is whether also mentioning the name used in the sources of the time is of value to readers. Dan Bloch (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no value to that. Most people are aware that people change their names for a variety of reasons and can follow the hyperlink if they are curious to know more about Ms. Horton's reason. The source being cited is what it is as a reliable source for the claim being made. Msnicki (talk) 18:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I used terms like [Latin for [transcription of numeral 6 is] six] in other programs [app naming / code commments], eg when you are looking for namings like this, you might be not that unreasonable [I am a loser, but I thought that maybe long term, well, ye know] [multilingual wiktionary?] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0A:A540:BE8:0:ACC6:17F2:88CC:E35A (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 1 December 2023

Vi → Vi (text editor) – (and redirect Vi to VI) Even with the second letter lowercase, this is a simple two-letter combination for which there is no primary topic. This subject's long-term significance not at the same height as primary topics Ra, Ur, qi, or pi. Google Search's first results are for the text editor, but this may be inauthentic – Google also jokingly displays Did you mean: EMACS. A Google Scholar search for "vi" -author:vi shows results almost entirely for "vi" as the Roman numeral (capitalized of course). Lastly, this topic doesn't significantly clear Vi (League of Legends) in terms of pageviews. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 17:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes!(but*): I buy it. (To me), (almost always), "VI" and "vi" are just annoying things to write instead of [6 (number)]. Where that is not the case, (in context), "VI" and ".vi" are US or British [Virgin Islands]; v.i. is [verb intransitive]; "Vi" is Vi [Violet (given name)]; and yes "vi" can be [vi (text editor)], but only because I have (rarely) read of it. (Btw, I never heard of vi, and can't recall having heard it spoken.) I think someone looking up "vi", "VI", "Vi", "V.I.", or "v.i." probably is not looking for "6", and is less likely to be looking for [vi (text editor)] than for one of the others. So yes, move [Vi] to [Vi (text editor)], *WITH REDIRECT (so that the existing 7 redirects to [Vi] get automatically corrected). AFTER the corrections happen, you could change [Vi] to redirect to [VI] (the existing disambiguation page), -OR- move [VI] to [Vi] (is there a norm? A quick look finds CA, CI, DU, EM, FM, IL, LB, MD, NC, ND, NY, PC, PR, and WA; but Bo, Do, Nm, Oe, Or, Oz, and Pa. (NJ, Nj, NZ, and Nz redirect to articles.) -A876 (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Without a way to differentiate on the lower-case first letter, it's probably true that there's no primary topic for vi/Vi, though an argument could be made on the basis of long-term significance. However, it's also true that the text editor is by far the most common destination from VI. Wikinav shows it having twice the outgoing pageviews of Vodaphone Idea and four times the outgoing pageviews of Vi (League of Legends). And this in spite of lower-case vi also having its own page. If vi is merged into the DAB, the DAB should lead off with a "VI most commonly refers to:" section a la Mercury. I'm happy to add this section, but if there are any objections now is the time to raise them, not later. Dan Bloch (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support there are uses that get many more more views[[1]] like British Virgin Islands with 37,909 and Vi (League of Legends) has 8,342 compared with 16,124 for this one. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)