Talk:Plain text

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Merge with text file

See discussion at Talk:Text_file --NealMcB 17:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion declined proposal - most opinions made a distinction between Plain text and non-plain text. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 17:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bad definition

The definition is bad – the article starts nicely explaining that plain text is text that lacks structurals and typographic markers, then it levitates into the blue, and avoids explaining the details about why plain text can be a good idea, and for what purpose. I must think about how to write this better... Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 17:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I made one try to improve para 1, but para 3 and forth shoots wildly and imprecisely with their smoking guns!! (I believe para 4 just shoot para 1 to death)! Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 17:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations?

The file was tagged for not citing sources? Why? There's no explanation here. Why? Please add a comment on what is to be improved on the talk page, the one who required citations for something. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 13:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm more than happy to explain. For starters, consider the following language:

    In computing, plain text is textual material in a computer file which 
    is unformatted and without very much processing readable by simple computer 
    tools such as line printing text commands, in Windows'es DOS window type, and 
    in Unix terminal window cat.

May I ask where this definition comes from? It is not only unsubstantiated by a citation to a reliable source, it seems to be a circular definition that conveys little or no new information to a General Audience. "plain text is textual material" ... "unformatted and without very much processing readable" ... ?

Respectfully, this sounds very close to an ad-hoc definition for an already tenuous concept. It does not appear to be supported by any academic, professional, or journalistic documentation. If someone wanted to look up this definition and research it for themselves, where would they go? How would this definition survive scrutiny if challenged under WP:OR? dr.ef.tymac 13:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Update: I've added a merge recommendation. The previous rationale for opposing the merge didn't make much sense, and there still is zero substantiation for a stand-alone article on this subject, especially the primary definition in the lead of this article. dr.ef.tymac 16:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)