Talk:Wiki markup

Wikitext vs. WikiText

Eh, I think the right name is 'WikiText'. Why is the tag WikiText redirected to tag DocBook? And why is this item available under the 'Wikitext' tag although the right name is 'WikiText'? --Martin Kozák 23:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I don’t know why WikiText was redirecting to DocBook. But it seemed so odd—the DocBook article doesn’t even mention a case-insensitive WikiText—that I have changed the redirect. Perhaps someone will now tell us. Ian Spackman 16:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Converting to WikiText

• Is there any software for converting, for example MS Word docs, to wikitext? Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 14:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. The different formats don't have enough in common. --*Wilfred* (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

: Yeah, that's a pity. However, there is a great Wikitext editor, wikEd. To install it, you have to edit your monobook.js page (see

wikEd help) - it just swithces ordinary edit toolbar. And it can convert formatting of the MS Word text.

This is the text I write in MS Word. It is very hard to transpose this formatting to WIKITEXT.

1. But
2. Now
3. it
4. is

• really
• simple
• just
• look

La la la	La la la	La la la	La la la
dsgerger	rg	ergrtgrg ger	g
Gerg ergergergergerg			ger
g	g	ergerg	erg

All you have to do is to write a text in MS Word, (or any other WordProc, I think) and to press a button called "Correct Wikitext" :D Simple, isn't it?? Piotr mil 17:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Wiki markup

Any reason not to merge the stub Wiki markup into this article? A simple redirect ought to do the trick. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 10:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree --Oblivious 11:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

MediaWiki WikiText

WikiText is a general classification, which covers different lightweight markup languages used by a variety of wiki software; so is it appropriate to refer to the specific markup in Wikipedia as MediaWiki WikiText? Squideshi 02:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiCreole

Is there any chance that Wikipedia will adopt WikiCreole or any other standardized markup language? ste_nohype 10:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The WikiCreole section appears to be entirely promotional as far as I can see, so I've removed it. I've also nominated its article for deletion as it does not appear to be notable. Vquex (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have re-added information on Creole, without any promotional slant. The Markdown markup language has it's own article and seems to be a similar thing, and little difference in notability, so there is no reason to exclude Creole. Barrylb (talk) 11:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I've never used it, but I would definitely say it's a notable wiki markup. Steven Walling (talk) 22:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This page not as helpful as it could be

Could someone provide a key to the symbols/codes used found at the bottom of Editing pages (e.g., <includeonly>) for the unitiated? Or is this found on another page? (When I searched for "Wiki markup", I was directed here.) Thanks. Tawagoto 02:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Kinda late, but look at Wikipedia:Formatting. C0N6R355^talk_contribs 00:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Patience is key [[User:(Blind-Peace)|(Blind-Peace)]] [[User talk:(Blind-Peace)|talk]] (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

<Ref>

Is this the right place to discuss this? If not, where?

I often feel overly constrained by the lack of flexibility of the Ref markup. A wished-for extension would be some means to have multiple, differently-named, <References/> tags within a page. Perhaps something like <Ref tag=tag_ID> - with the tag parameter defaulting to tag=References if not specified. This would allow several separate collections of references on the page. These could be grouped at the foot of the page (probably under separate section headers) and/or spread out (probably at the foot of individual page sections), as the page editor deems suitable.

Another item I've found bothersome, though it's probably messier to deal with, is lack of a mechanism for citation templates to interact with Ref. I often use <Ref name=something/>{{cite ...}}</Ref> and I find clumsiness with cite parameters such as page numbers which vary from cite to cite but which all apply to the same Ref. I end up not putting such parameters in cites which are wrapped in Refs, sometimes superscripting page number info, etc. immediately after the closing </Ref>. If Ref could provide a mechanism for the cite templates to pass info up, the Ref processing could format that info uniformly rather than having individual page editors working around this in different ways.

Or is it just that I've missed understanding something? -- Boracay Bill 06:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

revisiting this, I'm still wondering about this -- should I pursue it elsewhere? Where? One example where this comes into play is Dred Scott v. Sandford, where there are two cites of a note with no external link which, per WP:GTL should go in a Notes section, but which was presumably placed in the References section (violating WP:GTL)in order to have those two cites grouped into one Ref. The facility to say something like <Ref tag=Notes>, paired with <Notes/>, would be useful here. -- Boracay Bill 01:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

closing this discussion I now realize that I should probably be using Template:ref_label and template:note_label, and that this issue should not have been raised here. -- Boracay Bill 07:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the best place to the discuss the <ref> tag is at footnotes. -- Mizipzor 08:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverted Vandalism to 'see also'

Reverted vandalism to the SEE ALSO section. --Jamesjiao 00:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

List of operators

Could someone tell me if there is some list of operators which are used at Wikipedia? I would be glad to know even the basic ones (such as bold text or coloured text) since I do not know them ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountleek (talk • contribs) 18:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

List of operators

Could someone tell me if there is some list of all the text operators which are used at Wikipedia? I would be glad to know even the basic ones (such as bold text or coloured text). Is there anything like that? Mountleek (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I came here looking for same. One of my gripes about Wikipedia, searching for a simple question about editing Wikipedia pages, and you end up chasing links. No doubt, somewhere there is a page listing some common and useful Wiki markup examples ... but where is it? Do we have to rely on Google to find such answer (which often works better for me than trying to search in Wikipedia itself). Yo ... is anybody out there? No wonder Mountlake disappeared. Tachyon (talk) 11:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Low quality link

This link ("Why Wiki Syntax Is Important") speaks advertizoid rubbish, such as "WikiSyntax", lacks programming languages (my interpretation) JavaScript and HTML that can be hacked, and then exclaims "WikiSyntax" can even be used as a programming language! I say, that link resides here on borrowed time (shiver!), and as soon as there is some few better-quality links, it will unsentimentally be confined to /dev/null (Waste basket). Said: Rursus (☻) 11:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. Plrk (talk) 11:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Said: Rursus (☻) 11:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

1- The page states that wiki markup can be used as a "mini-programming language", not a full programming language. You can have variables such as TWikiVariables and basic logic (if/then/else). With some wiki engines, such as TWiki and XWiki, you can build quite complex applications from Wiki Syntax. For TikiWiki, here is an example of basic if/then/else:

{GROUP(groups=>Registered|Admins, notgroups=Editors)}

some text

{ELSE}

other text

{GROUP}

I am not as familiar with MediaWiki but my hunch is that some of the features could also make it qualify as a "mini-programming language"

2- As for Javascript and HTML, they can indeed be interpreted or not by the wiki engine (depending on the settings). According to WikiMatrix, 17 wiki engines have optional support for html tags. If you do support full html, and are in a fully-public (anyone can register/edit) context, you should use something like HTML purifier

3- I am looking forward to more input as to how to make that page clearer and more useful. On my user page, I address the conflict of interest concern Marclaporte (talk) 18:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

In any case; there is no reason for the link to be included at all: wikipedia is not a web directory. Plrk (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I think one of the most important thing in Wikipedia is its MARKUP LANGUAGE (Wikitext/Wiki markup)

So,:

1. why is then this article a {{# stub #}}!
2. some good, frequently used syntax examples MUST be given
3. shouldn't it be compared to HTML? Esp. that wikitext is so much easier as compared to HTML/XML (esp. if one types literally each and every word and those '<>' (brackets) and '\' or '/' when writing down HTML/XML document; these aforementioned symbols are not in the home row of QWERTY keyboard; therefore, wikitext is much FASTER to edit/type literally as these archaic expressions (again, aforementioned symbols) are absent in Wikitext)
4. about archaicity: Wikitext is young, HTML is old, XML is a bit younger than HTML, but still much older than Wikitext; XML came from HTML - XML is the child of HTML. Wikitext is totally different from XML/HTML(in ideological sense/markup language sense/language sense {compare: Indo-European languages, esp. the picture of now existing languages vs. the dead ones & branching:

Indo-European language family.

})!

1. Shouldn't this article be brought to at least FA status ASAP, as this is one of the defining features, the cornerstone, of MediaWiki which supports, is THE backbone, of WHOLE wikipedia (also supports wikipedias in other languages: don't forget, de.wikipedia, fr, cn, ja, ... which are also huge. BUT Wikitext originated in English, is an English markup language (e.g. keywords: "infobox", "table of contents" etc.)
2. Shouldn't wikitext be compared to other markup languages
3. last but not least: all the info boxes of Wikipedia, Wikimedia and others don't have Wikitext! That's, to my mind, is outrageous!

... instead of writing: "There is no commonly accepted standard wikitext language" (as finishing the very first question of "why is then...")?

Due to the aforementioned reasons I felt compelled to change the rating from "mid" to "high". Please, discuss with me first, rather than just change the rating without a single line of comment! Thank you.

NB: excuse me for my (too) passionate talk. Peace! Kazkaskazkasako (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

NBNB: just thought about saying, that I don't know MUCH about Wikitext, actually I'm still struggling to remember than "_" != "" and "*" != "'", not to talk that making tables & inserting images is still a pain-taking chore for me, as I must every time google THE syntax of Wikitext. Lastly, it's in general encouraged to edit NOT in HTML, but in Wikitext, so that Wikitext would survive (in an unequal fight, compare David and Goliath - David was young, inexperienced, and Goliath was a killing machine, but still, David, using his head, strength & slingshot - won) and maybe maybe maybe become the major "language" of the INTERNET, where now HTML with XML rule as unscathed supreme leaders (compare Google in search engines, or Microsoft in spreadsheets, i.e. Excel, if you, as I don't understand HTML/XML, but know what is G or MS). Kazkaskazkasako (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

NBNBNB: I tried to survive in the documentation jungle of the features of Wikitext, which are hidden in Wikipedia (e.g. G-search: returns smth between HTML & scarce examples of Wikitext as the first link in the results page . SCARCE! That's my point. Even G-bot crawler got entangled in the simple fact, that there are just few, literally, very few Wiki editors, who know all aspects of the language and even fewer who would try to document it in away suchbooksasthese were written. And I can bet that these FEW editors have, on average, more than 100 000 quality edits. My point is that there is not enough quality documentation on Wikitext and that almost all available-now documentation is written by the programmers/web-designers who IMPLEMENT/design/create/modify/understand this software but, on average, are not literature profs, i.e. money making prof. writers!

Final point (& I must stop editing today :D ): if the manual and esp. this page is brought to FA status asap, then the number of articles and other things will increase at the turtle's pace, as only those few really inerested & motivated editors would contribute to Wikipedia & see that there are masses of ppl who WOULD like to contribute but can't due to the lack of knowledge of such "simple" things as HTML and/or Wikitext!!!

Therefore, my grand plan would be:

1. improve this article to FA ASAP
2. publish very good manual of Wikitext online for free (GNU style & spirit, as whole Wiki & Wikipedia is) asap
3. continue doing as we all are doing up to now: programming, writing, editing, discussing, organizing, doing, literally, EVERYTHING what's possible in internet and beyond.
4. (I hope you don't take it seriously) let the "'morrowmorrow care about itself", i.e. [1] especially during this one of the biggest economic crisis in 20th-21st centuries.

Kazkaskazkasako (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

By "wikitext" in this discussion it was meant MediaWiki#Markup (aka "MediaWiki markup language" or "MediaWiki text"), not "wikitext" as a synonym for "wiki markup language" or plainly "wiki text" (or "wikitext"). Sorry for confusion back then.Kazkaskazkasako (talk) 13:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Color wikilink

Does anyone know what is the code of this blue color of the wikilink, the blue links in Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.100.48.133 (talk) 03:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Minor Bias?

Its syntax is simpler and easier to use than HTML.

Microsofkid (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

One word or two?

The article is entitled "wikimarkup" (one word), but the lead paragraph refers to "wiki markup" (two words). Don't know which is preferred, but the discrepancy should be eliminated. Rivertorch (talk) 07:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, two words looks better and fits the content. I have requested a page move to Wiki markup as a most links point to there first, cheers! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 17:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks. Rivertorch (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy move was declined pending double checking consensus, so ... Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 22:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Rename of page to Wiki markup

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Wikimarkup → Wiki markup — A more formal iteration of previous comment, does anyone agree or disagree with renaming the article Wiki markup- I'd just like to add that most links in other articles point to 'Wiki markup' and are redirected here ? Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 22:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support Wikimarkup is not a word. Wiki and markup are both in the dictionary. Both titles are basically variations of the most common nomenclature for the subject, which is the preferred according to WP:NAME, so we should use the version that is grammatically correct. Steven Walling 01:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. A simple Google search returns more hits for the single word than the two-word phrase. No idea if that should be taken into account. I actually don't have a horse in this race—I'm just seeking consistency between article title and usage within the article, and assume that whichever way consensus blows, redirects will suffice for the other version. Rivertorch (talk) 05:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support Wiki is a word, markup is a word, mikimarkup is not a word, at least in my home copy of the dictionary.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Open wikis and reliable sources

This page uses open wikis as references while they are clearly not accepted. As it was discussed here, Wikipedia and any other open wiki are not reliable. Those references should be replaced for some others accepted. There is also the possibility that the info is just not encyclopedic and maybe it should be removed.” T_eLeŞ(PT @ L C G) 03:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Yep, I believe it is noted here: {{WP:CIRCULAR}}. Sorry, but I cannot help as I can't find any other sources..

Talk with Daylon ~~> (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikitext as category name?

In my observation, "wiki markup" is the category term, while Wikitext, like WikiCreole, is the name of a particular markup language. This article suggests to the contrary: That Wikitext and Wiki Markup are synonyms. Does anyone have pointers outside the MediaWiki community where people use Wikitext as a category name? Rather than wiki markup? Dirk Riehle (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I would say that "wikitext" (or "wiki text") and "wiki markup" are synonyms and denote a category of all markups used in all Wikis, e.g. MediaWiki markup/text, WikiCreole... See List of Wiki markups, Comparison of wiki software (any of the Wiki softwares could have their own "wikitext"/"wiki markup"/"wiki language".Kazkaskazkasako (talk) 13:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Workarounds

These codes work the same.

Look	Code	Workaround
1. List item 2. List item	# List item # List item	1. List item <br> 2. List item

The 1905 Dallas star news paper printeing press

I would like to see pictures of this press and who made it Jim eaton (talk) 02:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Google usage frequency results: Wikitext vs: Wiki Markup

For some reason, there appears to be what I will call an existing "language-fork" regarding the proper name used to describe the particular "markup-language" employed at Wikipedia for the editing of its articles. Some seem to prefer to use the term: Wikitext, while others seem to prefer to use the term: Wiki markup. Thus far, the Wikipedia articles regarding our markup-language have all tended to steer readers towards the term: Wiki markup and away from the term: Wikitext.

I have recently been working in an attempt to better introduce new editors to the way things are done at Wikipedia, and during my attempts at this, I noticed this apparent "language-fork." Wanting Wikipedia to be as helpful as possible to the largest group of people possible, I Googled word usage frequencies for both terms, and this is what I found:

The Google word usage frequency for the term "Wikitext" was 3.5 million. The Google word usage frequency for the term "Wiki markup" was only 320,000. The term Wikitext was over ten times more frequently used than the term "Wiki markup."

With these results in mind, I then set up an article on Wikitext, and realigned our own internal links to reflect this. I apologize for then not posting my rationale here on this talk page, but I did then at least include the Google word-frequency results in my initial edit summaries. Apparently, someone deleted the article on Wikitext in an attempt at uniformity, but not knowing that in so doing Wikipedia was stepping back out of uniformity with the rest of the world's preferred name for our markup-language. When the article on Wikitext was deleted, a redirect was set back into the article's place, redirecting readers back to the term "Wiki markup."

At any rate, I will give this discussion until Oct. 15th, at which time, if nobody has yet provided convincing reasons here for continuing to use terminology that the rest of the world appears to have disagreed with, then I will go ahead and attempt to "fix this" again. I appreciate all good faith efforts by all, which efforts are seeming to make this project the best of its kind (thus far).

Scott P. (talk) 15:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

On 5 October I reverted Wikitext back to its original redirect to Wiki markup. I restate below the comments I made on my talk page.

For the record, I was making no judgment here. I simply noted that two articles covered the same ground and that the article Wikitext had been moved to Wiki markup in 2009. However since that date the redirect had been re-filled with some text, but it did not represent as comprehensive a view as the original article. We therefore had two dissimilar but duplicate articles which contravened Wikipedia's policy, so I followed the rules and reverted the redirect back to a redirect leaving the more comprehensive article as the definitive article (in sensu lato). What its name should be, is, I am sure, worthy of debate, but I have no preference. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)