Talk:RefTeX

Notability

I believe this software is notable for the following reasons:

• It's mature, stable software which has been actively developed and used for almost a decade.
• It's included in the Emacs and XEmacs packages of major free Un*x (GNU/Linux, BSD, etc.) distributions.
• It's about as notable as AUCTeX, whose notability is not disputed.
• Though not well-known generally, it is well-known in the TeX community.
• It generates considerable discussion on the WWW and Usenet. As of 2006, a Google query for RefTeX yields 57 000 hits on the former and 1800 on the latter.
• I don't have access to my journals now, but I'm pretty sure it's been referenced in or been the subject of articles in established digital typography journals such as TUGboat. I'm sure a fellow TUG member could provide some citations if necessary.

—Psychonaut 03:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Petaholmes

Petaholmes, the template message you have added states, "If you are familiar with [the subject], please expand the article, or discuss its significance on the talk page." The significance has been discussed on the talk page, and no one so far has disputed it. Why can't the template message be removed, then? —Psychonaut 00:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Because he's not convinced? --Gwern (contribs) 01:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Then he ought to discuss his objections on this talk page rather than continuing to retag the article as possibly non-notable. —Psychonaut 02:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Name inspiration?

I see here at one of the ACM's many journal sites a paper called "REFTEX: a context-based translation aid", from 1987. Coincidence? --Gwern (contribs) 03:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, coincidence. The "TEX" in "REFTEX" probably comes from "context", whereas the "TeX" in "RefTeX" comes from TeX. Also, the "Ref" parts, while they both probably come from the word "reference", are from different meanings of that term (linguistic referent versus a bibliographic citation). —Psychonaut 04:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)