Kommunal.az

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Perl (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Perl, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.PerlWikipedia:WikiProject PerlTemplate:WikiProject PerlPerl Linux Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux 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.LinuxWikipedia:WikiProject LinuxTemplate:WikiProject LinuxLinux Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Computing: Software / Free and open-source software Low‑importance This article 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as High-importance).

The content of Neovim was merged into Vim (text editor) on 18 February 2016. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Archives

1

Resolved

 – Date updated by Tedickey to 1993 (sourced), which corresponds to the earliest version referencing Vi IMproved. -- OliviaZoe0 ❤️ (She/her) (talk) 11:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "Ryan" source says "The name “Vim” originally stood for Vi IMitation, but it later became Vi IMproved. The name was changed in 1992 when version 1.22 was released". However, in the "Release history" section, we say "December 14, 1993 - v2.0 - This is the first release using the name Vi IMproved." The source for the latter entry isn't terribly useful in it's archive.org form as it's a directory listing and the links don't appear to work.

We need to find some other sources to date that change and ideally to flesh out some context around it. If that's not possible, we might have to note a discrepancy. I'm not sure the filewatcher citation is of any use now and should possibly be removed. --kingboyk (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A google search on "vim" "Vi IMitation" "history" (with the quotes) turns up a bunch of sources, but I didn't have time to do more than skim a few.

Some of them are:

• https://begriffs.com/posts/2019-07-19-history-use-vim.html#history
• https://jovicailic.org/2014/06/the-history-of-vim/
• https://building.vts.com/blog/2015/09/26/a-brief-history-of-vim/
• https://www.radford.edu/~nokie/vim/spr08/funwithvim.html
• https://www.moolenaar.net/vimstory.pdf

Like I said, I just skimmed these. I will see if I can get some time to do a proper evaluation in the next week or so if somebody doesn't do it first. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had a thought re the Ryan source. It was written in November 2011 (and very nicely written too). This article was already quite well fleshed out by then - here's how it stood on 26 October 2011. One has to wonder if the author consulted this article. We then reference him... well, you see where I'm going :) That's a wider problem for Wikipedia. It does though strengthen my opinion that we need some extra sources. @OliviaZoe0: will you take a look at the above links and/or look for some other sources? Confirmation of when the name changed would be good, and indeed why. --kingboyk (talk) 00:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(I have a collection of vim tarballs, vim's record-keeping in the early 1990s is not systematic): vim-1.27 (April 9, 1993) refers to it as "Vi IMitation", while vim-2.0 (December 14, 1993) refers to it as "Vi IMproved". I'd disregard the sources entirely which diverge from those known points. TEDickey (talk) 00:36, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This checks out. Looking at the readme and comments in some headers still refer to Vi IMitation up until 2.0. That being said, it's entirely possible the name change was done without modifying the code. It could be an internal reference and/or was a name change set to affect a later version. The thing is that all the sources originate from the Vim developer in a somewhat unclear manner (because it's entirely possible for i.e. Wikipedia to change its name now, but not have it take effect until the end of the year). I suggest we don't do anything about the version yet. Let's try to find a source that looks slightly different than being straight from the developer to see when it really took effect. If we can't do that, I'd suggest re-writing the paragraph to either include the 1.22 rename, but specify that it at least didn't take effect until 2.0, or just cut the 1.22 part entirely. -- OliviaZoe0 ❤️ (She/her) (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The latter (remove mention of 1.22 and correct the year). It's more than "some headers", because "Vi IMitation" was used throughout the code (45 occurrences in 1.24, 44 in 1.27, replaced by "Vi IMproved" in each case in 2.0). There are 54 C-files in 2.0, with 7 not mentioning vim at all. Further, 1.22 is undated in the source code, implying perhaps a year before 2.0 was released. The 1992 date is given by someone long after the event. There's no contemporary source for anything earlier than late 1993. The version.c file description of 1.22 doesn't correspond to the first source given (apparently written by someone who began using vim 6 years later) which says something entirely different: "The name was changed in 1992 when version 1.22 was released with compelling new features and a UNIX port." versus

 VIM 1.22 - Fixed a bug in doput() with count > 1.                              
            Port to linux by Juergen Weigert included.                          
            More unix semantics in writeit(), forceit flag ignores errors while 
            preparing backup file. For UNIX, backup is now copied, not moved.   
            When the current directory is not writable, vim now tries a backup  
            in the directory given with the backupdir option. For UNIX, raw mode
            has now ICRNL turned off, that allowes ^V^M. Makefiles for BSD,     
            SYSV, and linux unified in makefile.unix. For MSDOS                 
            mch_get_winsize() implemented. Reimplemented builtin termcaps in    
            term.c and term.h. set_term() now handles all cases. Even builtins  
            when TERMCAP is defined. Show "..." while doing filename completion

i.e., not compelling. The second source given for the 1992 date does not mention this at all. TEDickey (talk) 20:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the other mention of 1992 (Unix port in 1.22) needs a better source, since the sole (primary) primary source given omits the month and year, unlike the other versions listed in that source, likely because (a) there was no public announcement and/or (b) the year was filled in from memory. Late 1992 is plausible since the (dated) 1.24 came in mid-January. That does express an intention to change the name, but lacking a published, contempory WP:RS to the contrary, the 'actual change took place about a year later. One's memory is not a reliable source TEDickey (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I investigated further, finding that Ryan did in fact use this topic as the source for the comment about 1.22, and added the note with the supporting information to one of my FAQs. Have a nice day. TEDickey (talk) 10:43, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And following up, applied the changes which I've indicated. By the way, I found no useful (non-primary) source for the 1988 date which were not quoting from the sole primary source. As mentioned elsewhere, a useful source would be from the early 1990s, and not part of a promotional presentation. So I tagged that also TEDickey (talk) 10:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an improvement to the topic, nor especially of interest to anyone other than would-be bloggers TEDickey (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tedickey: What is not WP:ELYES ? External link to free courseware on topic. What does "would-be bloggers" mean? "advert" is NPOV, any link is an "advert"? Let others improve this article.

• Yue, Aaron. "98-277: The Vim Editor: Philosophy, Principles and Practice". Carnegie Mellon University. - Vim College Course

external link to free textbook on topic...

• Oualline, Steve (2001). Vi IMproved, Vim (PDF). Indianapolis, Ind.: New Riders. ISBN 0735710015. OCLC 255515199. Open Publication License

Oko5ekmi5 (talk) 22:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a student-taught course, for instance. TEDickey (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What, no mention of Vim Assistant?????

https://www.vim.org/images/vimassistant.gif

(=;

18:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)2600:1700:D0A0:21B0:3820:8BFE:E6C5:C921 (talk)

@Tedickey: the neovim section only briefly describes the goal of the fork, without listing any actual features. Could you explain how the inclusion of this information is "promotional"? Simply mentioning features of Neovim does not equate to promoting it. Is there a way I could have worded it better? Psr31 (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a primary source, cited in your edit as "prominent" (i.e., notable/important) features. That's promotional editing. Keep in mind that neovim's content here lacks independent, reliable sources TEDickey (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I revised my edit to instead elaborate on a previously cited source, the neovim documentation, which mentions these changes as major features. This matches content under the section "Features and improvements over vi", which cites the vim documentation. I also note the lack of citations in the section, would this content be considered promotional also?

Psr31 (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the wikipedia guidelines, notability is not something that you can source from a developer's website talking about their product, but instead is derived from multiple independent sources. By the way, your last change comment does not match the change. TEDickey (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be more appropriate to cite a blog post? It’s difficult to find secondary sources which reference software features, which I assume is why there is already a lack of secondary sources for the section “Features and improvements over vi”. Could you explain how my comment does not match the change? Psr31 (talk) 06:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BLOG. Your change did not "revert", but instead presented the information in a different manner than before TEDickey (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Something is wrong with the date and I honestly can't make heads or tails of the syntax sorry. 111.220.175.144 (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, it was a missing Wikidata parameter (version type), I fixed it.--Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 23:36, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dexxor: I believe paragraph on Clipboard should be moved to the Neovim subsection as the latter isn't compiled with built-in support for clipboard. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 16:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why should this article mention system clipboard support at all? That's not something that sets (Neo)vim apart from other editors. It's true though that one of Neovim goals is to "reduce friction for users" by not letting distros disable the +clipboard compile-time option (and other options). Dexxor (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not something that sets Well it does. There is no builtin support for it in neovim by default. This might be an unexpected feature for many newcomers.

«Nvim has no direct connection to the system clipboard. Instead it depends on a provider which transparently uses shell commands to communicate with the system clipboard or any other clipboard "backend".[1].»

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 10:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This quote shows that Neovim does support the system clipboard. The fact that Neovim uses shell commands to achieve this is an implementation detail. Since system clipboard support is inherently platform-dependent, it's only natural for Neovim to shell out to xclip, wl-copy or whatever tool the platform uses. Many programs implement clipboard support this way. Dexxor (talk) 11:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well let's just mention tha neovim's clipboard depends on third party tools. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 12:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I changed "improved clone of" to "enhanced clone of" in the intro, but I botched the change log (ironically, because I hit escape, as I do habitually while using 'vi'). I meant to say that "enhanced" was not denigrating, as "improved" might taken to be. (OK, all done inserting -- but don't hit escape!) BMJ-pdx (talk) 07:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is weird that Neovim is a section inside Vim. It is the fact that Neovim is a fork of Vim, but it has been not just a simple "improvement" of Vim and should no longer be inside the Vim entry.

Neovim is currently a project with enormous updates and its own community base, making it nowadays very different from Vim. Therefore, I truly believe that the merger back in 2016 was a mistake.

There are real cases on Wikipedia:

• GNU Emacs is based on the original Emacs, but GNU Emacs has a separate entry unlike Neovim.
• Vim is based on vi, but Vim is not inside the Vi entry.
• Sway is a drop-in replacement of i3, but Sway is not inside the i3 entry.

Charles Dong (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support a split. Neovim has progressed a long way beyond vim. Wire723 (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support that too. Semantism2 (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support a split as well and will perform it once I have collected references for a more substantial article — BE243 (about | talk) 02:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support yeah i have no clue why neovim is in here, especially since the 2 are now quite different in terms of features Emayeah (talk) 08:49, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The claims about 'advantages' resulting from keeping fingers on the home row only apply to people who use qwerty; the keys are utterly arbitrary in many other keyboard layouts ... It seems that at least some mention of the qwerty presupposition is in order? HalfSourLizard (talk) 03:00, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. 'Interface' section updated. Wire723 (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(the tag in the topic which should point here is malformed) The given source is unambiguous: it points to the newsgroup announcements. The title of the announcement for Vim 2.0 said "Imitation", but the accompanying source code referred to "Improved". Since Bram didn't explain how that happened (nor provide any timeline), readers can only guess. TEDickey (talk) 01:52, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(why not fix the link? anyway, I did) At first I didn't know what you meant by "the newsgroup announcements", but I think, maybe, you mean this link as the title at the top is "vim - Vi IMitation editor, v2.0" even though we can find "Vim - Vi IMproved" in the body of the text. IMO classifying that as unambiguous is not reasonable. That source is inconsistent! IOW ambiguous.

FWIW, the reference that precedes the dubious template is a URL to a page that seems to be a FAQ about Vile. As your handle here is TEDickey and the page indicates its author is a Thomas E. Dickey, I assume you wrote it. The section ref (#clone_begin) drills into vi clones including Vim. In that section, we find "... vim 2.0 ... that was when the description changed from “Vi IMitation” to “Vi IMproved” (a different story as yet untold)." That is unambiguous info and says that the change happened with the release of v2.0. ...but stopping there is hardly a reasonable approach. Finding one answer does not mean it's the only answer or the right answer. One can find just about any statement on the internet, right? And, if you are the author of that source then it's hard to imagine that you are not biased about its content. (Also, "a different story as yet untold" begs the question: Where is the rest of that story?)

We do find more conflicting info in Ryan Paul's article; referenced in the ref (although not referenced directly in this article). It says "The name “Vim” originally stood for Vi IMitation, but it later became Vi IMproved. The name was changed in 1992 when version 1.22 was released ... It gained support for multiple buffers in version 3.0". Notably v2 is _not_ mentioned. That implies the expansion changed _before_ 2.0 -- yet another ambiguity in the sources. And there's a tacit implication that v2 didn't exist! The Vile FAQ disputes the accuracy of that info ... but without indicating reasons that cast doubt. We don't know which is more accurate, right?

What does the Vim author, Bram Moolenaar, say? Not that people don't misremember, but it does add mud to the water. In this, Moolenaar doesn't even list v2.0. That's odd, no? Why would the author skip v2 while including v 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6? Was 2 never released? Even more interesting, he says "By version 1.22 Vim included more features than Vi. I decided to change the name from "Vi IMitation" to "Vi IMproved"" He doesn't actually say it changed in v1.22, but it's hardly a stretch to read that in.

What _can_ we say? The expansion did change yet when it changed is less than clear. It seems to have happened with a later v1 version or with v2.0. Or if there was no v2, then in v3. It seems to have happened in a less than consistent way: as indicated in the v2.0 group posting page. Stevebroshar (talk) 12:30, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the earlier discussion here. Ryan Paul's comments were copied from Wikipedia, and as such aren't reliable. Scanning through your comments, it appears that you're going down the same path. TEDickey (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A closer read of my comments would yield that I am talking about other sources as well. Stevebroshar (talk) 13:18, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have exactly one reliable source stating v1.22 (undated) was when the change took place, against newsgroup postings and source code which say it happened with v2.0, and an unreliable source (Ryan Paul) who copied from this topic to amplify the v1.22 comment. The weblink you point to is a later retelling of the same information, and not very interesting because of that. My impression of the matter is that because Bram didn't keep things in source control, he had random tarballs to look at, and didn't research the dates/versions for his 2001 article. v2.0 certainly existed; you can read the source. I've seen no trace of the actual v1.22 source code, and find it unlikely that it would have any comment explaining that VIM stands for "VI Improved", because that doesn't appear in v1.24 or v1.27. The vile FAQ points to the newsgroup announcement which shows part of it. There's no existing reliable source giving an explanation for why the announcement says "v41i050: vim - Vi IMitation editor, v2.0, Part00/25", and because of that there's nothing more to add in that line to this topic. TEDickey (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting for sure. Original research ... for sure ;) I applaud your work and your conviction. But, it does not eliminate ambiguity. 1) if one reliable source is not sufficient, how many does it take? 2) You seem quick to discount the author of Vim whereas I am very willing to believe what he says ... bc he's the author! 3) You guess about the author's personal habits. What leads you to your conclusions? Interesting, yes. Possible, yes. Conjecture, yes. 4) I guess you think that the announcement for v2.0 as Vi IMitation is wrong. I can accept that as plausible -- even though conjecture and OR. ... That you have a strong feeling when the expansion changed does not sway me and should not sway others. You seem to not want to admit in the content that there's ambiguity and uncertainly ... when clearly there is. A WP article is supposed to say what we know, not what we think. Stevebroshar (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You might find vim-history, which tells us that Moolenaar in creating a history of early versions was unable to find a tarball for v1.22 (noting that the commit for v2.0 doesn't match his newsgroup posting, which is unsuprising) TEDickey (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That link takes me to a github directory and which lists files and shows content labeled README ... although not sure which file it's actually showing as there is README.md, README.txt and zillion other files named README*. Anyway, I see nothing about Moolenaar creating a history of early versions. Stevebroshar (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had no trouble reading the git commit history. Since you appear to lack that ability, here's a quote (which other editors may verify if you ask them politely).

commit 9056831754099bcc56e9929e0df25b3d14d9faf6
Author: Bram Moolenaar <Bram@vim.org>
Date:   Tue Dec 14 00:00:00 1993 +0000

    Vi IMproved 2.0

commit 268329193b8d760248a9e27125a50f57887342f3
Author: Bram Moolenaar <Bram@vim.org>
Date:   Tue Apr 6 00:00:00 1993 +0000

    Vi IMitation 1.27

commit c86bb8a460c9beb641304589f81b1880cba5f550
Author: Bram Moolenaar <Bram@vim.org>
Date:   Tue Jan 5 00:00:00 1993 +0000

    Vi IMitation v1.24

commit c7eb58f2a10f8c42ecacf9fa05609625262e5b97
Author: Bram Moolenaar <Bram@vim.org>
Date:   Mon Apr 20 00:00:00 1992 +0000

    Vi IMitation v1.17

commit e328c16bdeeaf2067d367d13a0cdd95cfe0d1a19
Author: Bram Moolenaar <Bram@vim.org>
Date:   Sat Nov 2 00:00:00 1991 +0000

    Vi IMitation v1.14

The log tells me that he made the commits contriving to preserve the nominal release dates (since those are a decade before Git was available), which is common practice. It's very unlikely that someone else would fill in the author. since the repository was created no later than 2018. And if he had a v1.22 tarball, he certainly would have added that. By the way, your comments are getting a bit hostile. I suggest that you actually take the time to read the sources I've indicated instead of making comments about me. TEDickey (talk) 01:06, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(adding topic for dubious reference related to change that claims change was not before v2)

In this, the author of Vim, Bram Moolenaar, says "By version 1.22 Vim included more features than Vi. I decided to change the name from "Vi IMitation" to "Vi IMproved"". He didn't say he changed the name in v1.22, but he doesn't mention a different version WRT the name change. So, it's reasonable to assume he changed it in 1.22. It's even more reasonable to say that the change happened as early as 1.22. Stevebroshar (talk) 13:16, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See above. There's no evidence that he actually changed it in 1.22 aside from telling the story 8 years later. He may have intended to do this, but newsgroup postings and source code say it didn't happen at that point. TEDickey (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WRT "Vim's documentation describes it as an improved form of the older vi text editor (though it is built from a distinct codebase)"

First, I don't know/think 'form' is how it's described nor how I would describe it. And, 'older' is awkward too. Vim is described as an improved vi. No need to get fancier than that. I might call it a 'variant' of vi if I must classify it. The second word that comes to mind is 'version' which is not wrong in general, but is confusing since it usually implies codebase lineage.

Avoiding licensing issues was a big concern when vim was first developed. That is a important aspect of its origin story. Recent edits removed this and the result (above) simply says that the codebases are distinct. That is not wrong, but as so much of what I find on WP, it's vague and misses the point. First, distinct does not even necessarily mean that there is no legal connection between the two; just that they are separate. A fork is a distinct codebase that is probably legally associated. But vim is not a fork of vi, right? It's a clone; a pure clone.

IDK whether the legality issue pertains today in the same way it did when Vim was first developed. But, the important thing to tell the reader is legality/licensing issues were important to its origin. That is why the author didn't start with (fork) the vi codebase. An astute reader might wonder: why didn't the author start with the vi codebase? Good writing anticipates reader's questions and answers them. Just stating vague facts is less than good writing.

The mention that vim is a clone is still in there, but I think it's less than clear now. In a narrow sense, clone implies unrelated code lineage, but some don't understand that. I think we should clearly say that there is no lineage with the vi codebase.

Earlier wording was that Vim is self-described as an improved vi. I admit that "self-described" is a bit of a cop-out as it begs the question: how does an editor describe itself? I meant it that the author described it that way; not that others did. But, the current wording is that it's described in documentation. What documentation? I looked on the Vim website and do not see this described. Like the legal issue, I think we are dealing with a then vs. now thing. I think that originally, being associated with vi was a big aspect of Vim. But today, Vim stands alone; is not tightly associated with vi anymore. If we must identify where the author's claim is found (that vim is an improved vi), then I think it's in release notes for early versions.

I think the article should mention the legal aspect, more clearly that vi is a clone (not a fork), and _not_ that documentation says it's an improved vi. Maybe these issues are better suited for the history section since they don't really apply today. They are important aspects of the Vim origin story.

I'm not going to change content rn since it risks being labeled an edit war. I'll step away for a while and come back a later day to see if there's replies here or content changes. Or maybe I'll forget all about it. ;) Stevebroshar (talk) 13:21, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're referring to my rewrite. I was initially motivated to rewrite the lead because, as I described on your talk page, you use semicolons in an ungrammatical way. You are free to edit my revisions as you like, but I would recommend special care with this aspect (and reading the links I shared on your talk page) so that your punctuation is correct in the future, or just avoiding them altogether. As I said previously, many educated people people frequently misunderstand semicolons (like our article on them notes), so you're in good company, but their misuse is like nails on a chalkboard to us persnickety types. Rather amusingly, then, we both seem rather interested in correcting each other's writing. I'm quite happy if we can solve both sets of problems together.

As for the more specific points you raise, part of the trouble here is that I think you want the lead section to go into far more detail about the licensing, but we lack relevant reliable sourcing for describing licensing as a motive for vim's creation, which is why I removed it.

You can see the conundrum, I imagine. Since all material has to be verifiable, we can't include information that we don't have a reliable source for. I searched for a bit but was unable to locate satisfactory ones. I'm happy to discuss if you find a good one, although I think it's a bit overdetailed for the lead to explain the whole "it's BSD now, but was proprietary then" stuff. If sufficient sourcing is found, it would be best to keep any mention in the lead very brief and keep details of changes over time / in the history section.

(This seems perfectly compatible with your "answering astute reader questions" idea, without overwhelming casual ones with trivia. If you know nothing about vi or vim, it is probably far more useful for its today-unusual modal editing paradigm to be explained than arcana about its licensing or name change. It is regrettably poor writing we spend more time on the latter two in the lead, although I haven't had the time to address that yet.)

This is more pedantic, but I'm also not sure quite as sure it's true licensing / legal issues actually were actually important to Vim's origin in the same way that, say, it was for nvi, which was explicitly designed as a drop-in open source vi replacement. Certainly Moolenaar based vim off Stevie because it was an Amiga program whose source was available to him, and vi was not (which Moolenaar mentions in one of his YouTube talks IIRC). We have to remember, though, that Vim began as a pet project that was originally not even released publicly, and it took until several versions in for it to get a license of its own (it would not inherit one from Stevie, since that was public domain). The motive behind creating it was not to get around vi's licensing imitations, but rather to allow Moolenaar to use the vi commands he became familiar with in university, like he says in his talks. Even if vi was freely licensed from the start, I think it's speculation to believe he would've just forked vi, like you imagine a reader pondering; it seems entirely possible a ready-made Amiga clone's code would've been easier to work with than attempting a full port of a program from another platform.

The rest of your points seem to be minor wording concerns, which I am largely happy to accept for now, although I think "Vim is described as an improved vi" isn't great writing either. With that we're largely just redundantly restating the acronym we already give in the intro (and the section detailing the name change). For now I will let it be since a better alternative isn't coming to me, but it's not ideal. Curlyquote (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Neovim is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neovim until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

voorts (talk/contributions) 01:51, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]