Talk:Wikitext

Maybe part of this should be moved, but a general discussion of the princniples of wikitext is helpful since it may change over time -- in particular now that there are gradual changes being made to accomodate WYSIWYG editing. [not to mention the perennial work on universal wiki syntax proposals...] -- sj | help translate |+ 07:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

January 2011 format discussion

See Wikitext/2011-01 format discussion for a summary of the latest discussion on this topic. -- RobLa-WMF 18:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

PHP Parser link is dead. -75.164.206.127 18:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Chealer's 2024 re-write

Hey @Chealer, your re-write has changed this document quite a lot, to the detriment in my opinion. In particular, the lede now seems to claim that wiktext-as-a-spec and wikitext-as-used are different concepts, and then ignores that entirely to say this document is about MediaWiki's. This is a principal documentation point for MediaWiki. I think we should revert your changes and make a series of smaller, less controversial changes, and discuss them first here? Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 12:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Greetings @Jdforrester (WMF),

The lead does not refer to either "wiktext-as-a-spec" or "wikitext-as-used". I'm sorry but I do not understand your question and do not understand which controversial changes you're referring to. Chealer (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Chealer: Your changes per this diff changed the lede from saying it was one thing ("Wikitext is a wiki markup language for creating documents") to saying it was two things, claiming in the most specific edit's commit summary to be copying it from a general reference article from the English Wikipedia, which of course has a vastly different audience, to avoid "confusion"). You deleted almost all of the contextual history as "outdated" (which is inevitably what history is). You dropped the link to the Parsoid test cases, rather than point to their new repo, which given they are the canonical reference work for these things seems an odd choice (I agree that the old link needed re-pointing). You dropped a link to the spec DTD on the basis that you claimed (with an unknown basis?) that it was "obsolete".

I would have expected at the very least a talk page message establishing what you were trying to change about the document and why. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 14:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

You can see the edit summaries to see what changes, as well as most of the non-obvious reasons, but feel free to ask if anything still seems unclear.

The "commit summary" you mention does not make such a claim. What it says is that the edit adds a link to the English Wikipedia… but I fail to see your point anyway.

Which "contextual history" would I have deleted as "outdated"?

Would you be less concerned if we just marked the test cases part as broken instead?

Regarding the "link to the spec DTD" you mention, I did not drop it "on the basis of any of my claims", and the basis for stating that it's obsolete is the target page itself (as you can see in the notice right at the top). Chealer (talk) 02:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)