Talk:ReStructuredText

message: The original stub for "ReStructured Text" (note the space) was as follows:
reStructuredText (abbreviated reST) is a lightweight markup language capable of being read in its plaintext form. The standard Python module Docutils uses reST.
-- Korpios 20:09, 16 June 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original stub 

message: I'm trying to turn it into a full-blown article, as I use RST all the time.  I made a new article for "ReStructuredText" (the proper name), set up a redirect from "ReStructured Text" to "ReStructuredText", made some changes, removed the awkward formatting (as it's purely aesthetic), and added the article to Wikipedia:List of pages whose correct title is not allowed by MediaWiki (because of the leading lowercase "r").
-- Korpios 20:14, 16 June 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, the proper name is “reStruturedText” (I find it a bit ugly since I loathe stupidly capitalized names but it is named so). You can read a capitalized inital “r” where title case is used or at the beginning of a sentence. Regarding the abbreviations, I’ve noticed the it is abbreviated “reST” in human talk and “rst” in code. Best, fr:User:Leafcat  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.21.186.39 (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initial changes 

message: What's the relation of RST to Markdown? I notice that all the syntax (except the hyperlinks) seems to be the same. --Gwern  (contribs) 18:59 17 January 2009 (GMT)
ReStructuredText and Markdown are two different Lightweight markup languages. --24.252.38.194 (talk) 11:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Markdown 

message: The removal of the large "Tool Support" section (19:36, 19 April 2010 Thumperward) IMHO, is a *bad* thing. This information is extremely useful. Let me argue that without tool support, a markup language is merely a thought experiment.
This kind of compilation can't be found anywhere else. Insisting on form over substance diminishes the availability of knowledge, and I can't fathom how this serves the mission statement of Wikipedia. 
If, however, after the proper debate this section would be scheduled for removal, please indicate this change before making it, and allow this information to be archived elsewhere (http://article.gmane.org/gmane.text.docutils.user/5713). - Chenlevy (talk) 13:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing stopping people from retrieving the list from the page history, although it should never have been added in the first place. I would suggest that, having canvassed for this off-wiki, the onus is now on you to locate a suitable host. Wikipedia is not a resource portal for this kind of thing, and the presence of a huge collection of external links was to the detriment of this article in that it hid the article's deficiencies. I'll be removing the inappropriate content again on the next pass. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is it appropriate to put this link at the external links section? Also regarding Copyrights and attribution, although I am the original author of most of that text, some other people contributed fixes, so my question is do I need to put some boiler plate text above the answer linked to? Does it matter if this text is removed from Wikipedia? I believe that the stackoverflow.com content is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic. Chenlevy (talk) 06:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:EL discourages linking to user-generated content like this precisely because it is open-ended and there can be no guarantee as to its quality at a given time. For what it's worth, if you're going to copy the text (which you are permitted to do by the license) then I believe that you still need proper attribution, such as the URL of the page revision that the material was taken from. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe in this case an exception would be appropriate. this list is unique on the web, useful on the topic, and not likely to be changed in a quality-decreasing way. – Flying sheep (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  tool support 

message: It would be good to mention reStructuredText's extensibility in this article. This sets it apart from many of the other lightweight markup syntaxes.
References:
* http://docutils.sourceforge.net/docs/ref/rst/directives.html#custom-interpreted-text-roles
* http://docutils.sourceforge.net/docs/howto/rst-directives.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmachiel (talk • contribs) 13:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extensibility