Talk:Notepad++

Multiline Regex?

This isn't cited and I've gone through the whole plugin list trying to find which plugin does this. Can someone either cite this or remove the reference? All I can find is the notion that potentially, multiple-line regular expressions could be handled by a plugin, not that they are. 130.101.163.114 (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Features Section

It seems as though everything after the first two paragraphs should be put into a Features section. Furthermore, the list of programming languages and list of translations should be replaces with a quantitative statament (ie Notepad++ supports XX languages) with a link to the official list cited as a reference. Any thoughts? Objections? --Hamitr 02:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have done this, it looks a lot nicer without a gigantic list of languages (and links to their Wikipedia pages). Fissioninferno (talk) 05:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Notability

This certainly seems notable enough to warrant an article. There are innumerable less-noteworthy subjects on Wikipedia. Lots of people use and recommend this application. As it happens, I stumbled across this article while researching open-source text editors for Windows. Isn't research the sort of thing one uses an encyclopedia for? -- 208.255.162.94 18:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Something that is notable is ... well ... noted. I personally have not found any reliable sources that note Notepad++. Have you? --Iamunknown 18:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has numerous pages that lack "reliable sources". Why single out this one? creativename | Matum u mok-aan! Matum u shara-hai agh golug-hai! 04:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not regarded as a valid argument to keep an article. Plenty of articles exist on Wikipedia that probably should not; so see first if you can improve them, and if not, delete them. --Iamunknown 06:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Notepad++ is used by programmers, there is a lot of evidence that programs really like Notepad++ (download.com has 62 votes all 5/5 [1]) a lot of the statements (like features) do not require citation as it is not disputable, however as some people still want citation, I suggest just looking at its site, or downloading it and have the feature hit you in the face. --Adam1213 Talk + 05:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Number 16 top download on sf.net, above MiKTeX, Audacity, and phpBB. --Amir E. Aharoni 08:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Number 4 top forum posts on sf.net --Adam1213 Talk 01:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It is very notable: it is widely recommended in online forums and computer magazines for creating/ editing Web pages with HTML. One could even argue that it is the industry standard for this role. Dogru144 (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

If you can get a couple of those mags and lay out some citations we'll be all set on the "notability" front. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 13:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth users on the popular programming Q&A site Stack Overflow frequently recommend Notepad++ as their text editor of choice (for example in this question the two most popular answers recommend Notepad++) although I'm this doesn't exactly count as a citation. On a more personal note I would have been fairly surprised to find Notepad++ didn't have an article as in my experience its a popular choice for a Notepad replacement among programmers. --Kragen2uk (talk) 07:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Its regularly included in those "essential freeware" software compilation cds and occasionaly on the cover disks of pc magazines, at least in the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.153.191 (talk) 03:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Unicode support ?

Does anyone have information about whether Notepad++ supports Unicode, and if so, whether it is fully Unicode compliant? DFH 16:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Notepad++ has unicode support how to tell what its set to

--Adam1213 Talk 13:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia

Does anyone know if there are any user-defined language files for Mediawiki markup? SharkD (talk) 09:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The boycott of China

The sourceforge.net article speaks of notepad++ being boycotted by the Chinese. Should this article elaborate? 82.169.255.79 (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but the way I read the sourceforge.net article, it was Notepad++ who boycotted China (whatever that means), and then China blocked SourceForge, but there is no indication that China's actions against SF has anything to do with Notepad++. It may be noteworthy to mention Notepad++'s actions against China, if indeed it amounted to anything more than a claim or a statement on their web site -- leuce (talk) 09:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I looked into it and it and wrote the section below. However it was reverted by User:Scarpy because the links were not WP:Reliable Sources (most importantly, those that imply WP:Notability). I'm kind of disappointed because I spent a while to research it (but that's beside the point). If anyone else thinks this is notable and can find any third-party sources, feel free to work with it. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 23:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Boycott of Beijing Olympics

In March 2008, Notepad++'s homepage displayed a "Boycott Beijing 2008" message, calling China "the world's biggest prison for journalists and cyber-dissidents". The developers later clarified that the boycott was "not against Chinese people, but against Chinese government's repression in 2008 Tibetan unrest." However, many Chinese users were offended by the boycott and a forum was created on Notepad++'s SourceForge site to "Boycott Notepad++" in response. Offended users felt that SourceForge was no place for making political statements, boycotting the Olympics was not an appropriate response to Chinese actions in Tibet and that the developers, who had never been to China, did not understand the situation. The flamewar that ensued brought out anti-Chinese sentiments on one side and comparisons between Notepad++ developers and the Falun Gong on the other.

Writing Style

This article is well referenced and detailed, offering a substantial amount of information regarding Notepad++. It may be helpful, however, to offer some short definitions of certain terms used in the stem and later in the article which allude to more technical jargon which would go over the head of the average wikipedia user. I understand that the majority of these terms are linked to various wikipedia sites which define and explain them (the inherent benefit of wikipedia), but stopping every other word to switch to a different article in an effort to understand the original one may make understanding some key concepts difficult for researchers trying to utilize this article. Otherwise, this article is well laid out and fairly well referenced. Are there other sources outside of Notepad++'s homepage that would help verify the information given about its components and compatibility?

Also, in terms of notability, the SourceForge.net site listed as a reference shows a steady decrease in downloads of Notepad++ in the last four months after peaking in November of 2008. Does this trend imply that it has become so commonplace that most programmers have already downloaded it, or that it is becomming outdated and thus losing notability? Barrettgholland (talk) 22:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a well-developed article introducing the open-source program developed by computer users. The structure of this article looks fine. The article provides adequate links to the technical or computer terms for further understandings. The usage of the image is appropriate and does not violate the copyright because the distribution of the software is free in the public domain. The arrangement of the article may not be well-developed so far. The other good part is the article also provides links to some other open-source software at the end. One could assume that the information provided is accurate because it comes from the creator of the program and other experienced users who have tested the program. One of the suggestion is to mention the strengths and weakness of the program independently, and compare with other similar programs. Wxie (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

---

I think this article is well-written. It includes adequate citations and the screen-shots are very helpful. Most of the terms used in the article are too advanced for the average user but that is simply the nature of the topic. It would take pages and pages of information to explain this to most users. If there are other programs like this one, then I would do a quick comparison of the two programs just to show the advantages and disadvantages of the Notepad++ program. Also, it might be helpful to suggest why this program is freeware. Is there an upgraded version that you have to pay for? In conclusion, I think this is a great article and the only things I would try to add are a comparison with another program and why the program is freeware. Great Job. Dwhoyle (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

On behalf of the authors, thanks. The only issue with your two suggestions is they would require us to add input and that's against WP policies. It's pretty clear when you read the policy on Original Research that the editors must not add anything to the article that does not come from a third-party source. If you have articles that compare this and other products or an article that explains why the decision was made to leave the product as freeware we'd gladly put it in. But we can't add Original Research to the article. Padillah (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Technicalities

This article is very well-written, although I think it's content and wording goes above and beyond the average person's knowledge about computers. Perhaps you could add a section describing a "notepad for dummys" or the equivalent. Since most people tend to use Wikipedia to find summaries of complex subjects, this might be useful. Perhpas immediately after the two paragraph introduction, before the contents box you could just add a small blurb that summarizes what Notepad does/is for the average computer user. also, I agree with user Dwhoyle, a brief comparison on the Wikipage in addition to the link to "Comparison of Text editors" might be useful and helpful for Wikipedia users. Overall, I think the entire article is well put-together and terrificly organized. I would only suggest changing a few areas to make it more universally computer friendly. (Rachelp87 (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC))

I've reorganized and rewritten it to present general features first and programming ones next. Also rewritten the lead section to note down the important things, other stuff moved to Development. Has the article improved? Is it universally computer friendly? Looks pretty much like "Notepad++ for dummys" to me. -- Tom Jenkins ^(reply) 15:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

PHP

Who is Jason Gilmore? Why is that whole section like a review? Can I rewrite it to present the summary and facts instead of rambling about discussing what Mr. Gilmore thoughts and how they differed from the facts? -- Tom Jenkins ^(reply) 15:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Gilmore mentioned Notepad++ in a PHP book. I just deleted the whole section, as I didn't think it was a good idea to get into the failings of support for particular languages here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Features: File comparison

"Features - General features include: [...] File comparison"
Does that still work correctly resp. does it work correctly again? http://sourceforge.net/p/npp-plugins/discussion/730527/ includes reports like "Change highlighting doesn't work with s... " and "Highlight transparency option - no effect?" which state that file comparison (kind of) broke. Also the ref http://notepad-plus.sourceforge.net/uk/about.php now leads to http://notepad-plus-plus.org/ and does not back up the feature claims anymore. -Quark8967 (talk) 02:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Features: File Size Limit

As an "editor", especially one oriented towards the programming/development user, it would be nice to specify how large a file NotePad++ can edit. I looked on the tool's website, but after a quick look, could not find this information. I am asking this for I'm getting a message from NotePad++ that the file is too big to edit, but it does not state what the limit is. The file is about 608MB, which seems large, but not outlandish for this day and age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan Aquinas (talk • contribs) 20:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dan Aquinas. I did a quick search, and while I wasn't able to find a "size limit", I did find these two relevant discussions on the Notepad++ discussion forum:

• What is the Notepad++ file size limit?
• Editing 600 mega XML file

Good luck. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Infobox image sizes

Hello

@Mlpearc: {{Infobox software}}'s images do not obey any known user preference. The logo defaults to 64px and the screenshot to 300px.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: I now realize |logo = will not, but |image = does as mentioned here, so the blanket statement "{{Infobox software}}'s images do not obey any known user preference" is incorrect. Better regards, Mlpearc (open channel) 17:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mlpearc: The source code of {{Infobox software}} is open to inspection for everyone. I just checked. It is 300px for all users. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Better to use logo size parameter anyway, for what it's worth. Fixed. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Infobox screenshot

@Codename Lisa: Is File:Notepad++ v7 on Windows 10, with MediaWiki 1.27.1 source code, with split window view and autocompletion.png a good screenshot for the infobox or are you still unsatisfied with something? I'm not a fan of File:Notepad++ GUI with MediaWiki source code (cropped).png being cropped and visually noisy due to Aero theme: The clear focus is not on the text editor itself in that Aero version.

I also wonder if File:Notepad++ v6.9.2 on Windows 10, with MediaWiki 1.27.1 source code, with split window view.png has better compositioning/arrangement, but it only shows PHP text editing capabalities. There's quite much of empty space in the v7 screenshot, but I think it's a good idea to avoid noise whenever possible.

80.221.159.67 (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

You have Aero-phobia, I think! LOL. —Codename Lisa (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: Actually, it is Wikipedia:Software screenshots that dictates there is no consensus on whether the Aero Glass theme used by Windows Vista and 7 is sufficiently original for protection—deletion discussions have gone both ways. To comply with relevant policies, it's best to play it safe instead of relying on de minimis claims. Of course, there's also Commons' precautionary principle policy.

For another note, the v6.9.2 screenshots have ClearType enabled, which violates the previously mentioned policy's recommendation. It looks like these won't be fixed. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

First and foremost, Wikipedia policies dictate nothing. Wikipedia does not have a law etched on the stone.

Second, Wikipedia:Software screenshot is not a policy. It is more of a guideline than actual rule.

Third, unlike you I have been present in many of those deletion discussions that have gone either way. I know under what circumstance they go which way.

Fourth, you are talking about the cropped image which has not been subject to any deletion discussion.

Fifth, competence is required, which you lack. You change {{Infobox OS}} into {{Infobox OS version}} and claim they are different! Quite frankly, I don't take your precaution seriously.

Sixth, in case you haven't noticed, there are far more important things about an image than ClearType being on! Composition, contents and thousands of other things are more important.

Best regards

Codename Lisa (talk) 19:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Stable release

Hi,

Does anyone know why I can't update the stable release in the infobox? Wagnerp16 (talk) 07:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Wagnerp16. Tell us what you tried first. As far as I can tell, nothing is wrong. —Codename Lisa (talk) 09:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Codename Lisa, I was trying to update the version number to 7.4 which was released yesterday, but I can't seem to find the specific field to modify it. Wagnerp16 (talk) 10:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Wagnerp16: Just go to the article and look at the infobox. In front of the version number, there is hyperlink that reads: "[±]". Click on it. It'll take to version number. And next time, you got stuck doing something with a certain template (in this case, Template:Infobox software), go to the template page and read the documentations for it. It is faster than posting a help request in talk page. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: Thanks for the assistance. Sorry, I had no idea about the "[±]" symbol or what it did. I assume the article will update with the new information sometime today. Wagnerp16 (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Project website

I am having trouble accessing the project website. When I click on the "Download" link in the left sidebar, for example, my browser goes to the nonexistent http:///download/. Has this been discussed before?   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I can't reproduce this. Everything is fine for me. —Codename Lisa (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

And works for me. Which link are you following? peterl (talk) 05:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Notepad++. 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/20090719155339/http://www.computeractive.co.uk/computeractive/downloads/2196837/notepad to http://www.computeractive.co.uk/computeractive/downloads/2196837/notepad

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 06:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Notepadqq

This external link was removed,[2], but I've added it back in because it seems relevant and applicable. I'm note sure whether it's got enough notability yet to become it's own page, although it seems like it's heading that way.

I am in no way connected to the project.

There is (a little bit of) coverage for it at:

• https://opensource.com/article/17/12/editing-text-linux-desktop-notepadqq
• https://itsfoss.com/notepadqq-notepad-for-linux/
• https://itsfoss.com/notepad-alternatives-for-linux/

There also seems to be a bit of activity on the support forums at:

• https://plus.google.com/communities/118430810002505082315

It's over 6 years old and the most recent commit was 8 days ago, so it seems real.

• https://github.com/notepadqq/notepadqq

peterl (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

If you think this product is notable, start a page for it. But it doesn't belong here. You've been reverted twice now, and you need to stop spamming this link into an unrelated Wikipedia article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Easter eggs

This section strikes me as poorly-sourced trivia. I don't think it belongs here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Notepad++ version history

I propose moving the section § History (or parts of it) to the new article Notepad++ version history. Similar articles can be found in the Category:Software version histories. --Soluvo (talk) 11:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

That would be misleading. The current History section isn't a version history. --HSukePup (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's big enough to warrant its own page. peterl (talk) 06:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)