Talk:Wiki markup

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wikitext vs. WikiText 

message: * Is there any software for converting, for example MS Word docs, to wikitext? Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs)  14:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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	Gerg ergergergergerg	ergrtgrg
ger	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)
thread_title:  Converting to WikiText 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agree --Oblivious 11:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Wiki markup]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  MediaWiki WikiText 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  WikiCreole 

message: 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)
replies: text: Kinda late, but look at Wikipedia:Formatting. C0N6R355talkcontribs 00:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page not as helpful as it could be 

message: 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,  tags within a page.  Perhaps something like  - 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  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)
replies: text: I think the best place to the discuss the <ref> tag is at footnotes. -- Mizipzor 08:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  <nowiki><Ref></nowiki> 

message: Reverted vandalism to the SEE ALSO section. --Jamesjiao 00:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted Vandalism to 'see also' 

message: 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)
thread_title:  List of operators 

message: 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)
thread_title:  List of operators 

message: So,:
# why is then this article a !
# some good, frequently used syntax examples MUST be given
# 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)
# 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: 
})!
# 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.)
# Shouldn't wikitext be compared to other markup languages
# 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: I think one of the most important thing in Wikipedia is its '''MARKUP LANGUAGE''' (Wikitext/Wiki markup)

message: 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)
thread_title:  Color wikilink 

message: Its syntax is simpler and easier to use than HTML.
Microsofkid (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor Bias?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Sounds good. Thanks. Rivertorch (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Speedy move was declined pending double checking consensus, so ... Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 22:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  One word or two? 

message: 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.” TeLeŞ(PT @ L C G) 03:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open wikis and reliable sources 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Wikitext as category name? 

message: I would like to see pictures of this press and who made it Jim eaton (talk) 02:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 1905 Dallas star news paper printeing press