RE: fancy splash screen

[Drew Adams]

    >     > "Emacs" in "About Emacs" is not redundant in any way.
    >     > If you have multiple buffers, there is nothing that
    >     > implies that one named only "About" has help about Emacs.
    >
    >     Most applications I know have exactly one "About" menu,
    >     and Emacs does not seem to be different in that respect.
    >
    > It's not about the menu; it's about the buffer name. There are lots
    > of buffers whose content is "about" something, and some Emacs
    > libraries might use that term in buffer names, for various
    > purposes. You might have buffers "*About Foo Bar*" and "*About
    > Toto*".

    But we don't have any such buffers.  This seems academical.

"We" who? Users may use such buffers. Other libraries may use such buffers.

    > The buffer about Emacs should be called "*About Emacs*" (possibly
    > with "GNU"). A buffer name of just "*About*" does not clearly
    > indicate what it is.

    As I said: having a single "About" item is common for applications.

As I said, it's not about the menu-item name, or the number of menu items
per application, or the number of applications; it's about the buffer name.

    Since the menu entry is called "About Emacs", calling the buffer
    "*About Emacs*" seems a suitable choice.

So we agree.

    I don't find your arguments
    for that name persuasive at all, but since I am fine with that choice,
    it seems useless to haggle over just _why_.

Good.

    > Similarly, I don't see it mentioned in the Emacs manual. Shouldn't
    > it be mentioned along with the use of space as first character for
    > internal buffers (e.g. in node Select Buffer)? Node Buffers is
    > perhaps a good place to mention use of both `*' and initial space in
    > buffer names. That node gives examples of `*' buffers, without ever
    > pointing out that they are buffers that are not normally visiting
    > files.

    It is basically only a convention, but it might be worth mentioning
    there or somewhere else.

It should be mentioned in the conventions section of the Elisp manual, if it
is a convention that we would like programmers to use.

If it is useful for users to understand this naming convention (and it must
be; otherwise, why use it for user-visible names?), then it should also be
pointed out in the Emacs manual.