Talk:Wiki Markup

Wiki Markup

 * Note: this discussion was previously at Requests for verification. —Ruakh TALK 13:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this just our jargon? DCDuring TALK 23:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think so, but I'd question both the capitalization (I believe undefined: is more common) and the idiom-ness; while I do get the impression that most references to "wiki markup" are about MediaWiki markup, I think that's simply because most references to wikis are about MediaWiki wikis (especially Wikipedia, and to a lesser extent the other Wikimedia projects). I can't imagine anyone saying, for example, "MeatballWiki markup is very similar to wiki markup." —Ruakh TALK 01:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that wiki should not be capitalised. I'd also RFD this as sum of parts (it's the markup used on a wiki, and nothing more), but I won't confuse matters by doing that during an RFV. Equinox ◑ 21:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that RFV requires time and effort. This is not hard to cite from, but what editor would want to spend time doing so if the result of the RFV is likely to be an RFD (rendering the citations worthless)? The shadow of a looming RFD could well cause this word to fail RFV. —Ruakh TALK 02:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see why, as long as the person finding the citations believes the RFD can pass. If nobody wants to cite it for months and months when it's trivially citeable, they are giving their implicit approval to any deletion request. Surely anyone who thinks it's worth keeping would now hurry to find citations to get it at least out of RFV and onto the next stage, to defend it against the (inappropriate) deletion? Equinox ◑ 03:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * But isn't that basically treating abstain votes as delete votes? Especially since it would take time and effort to vote keep? "Trivially citeable" means it's easy to find b.g.c. hits in the right sense, not that it's necessarily easy to choose representative quotations both early and recent, and track down correct metadata for them (which is often a lot harder than it might sound). Even in the best of circumstances, citing words properly is rather tedious. Admittedly, the rules of RFV don't actually require that words be cited properly, only that they be cited; but fairly few editors ever cite words here, and I think the ones who do, all put a lot of effort into doing so. —Ruakh TALK 12:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * So does anyone thing this is idiomatic? Chatting about votes takes time too, and if there's no point in that then let's go right to RFD.


 * To me wiki markup is the text markup used in any wiki, regardless of which software is in use. No more idiomatic than HTML markup, etc.  “Designed for an encyclopedia” doesn't sound true to me, and anyway is encyclopedic, not defining – if it were pared down to a good definition, then it may be clearer that there isn't much to it.  Again, if no one wants to put any time into this entry, then it goes away—that's how we work. —Michael Z. 2009-05-27 13:02 z 


 * For the record, several people have put time into this entry. This includes admins who saw it, made improvements, and never RFD'd it; you can take that as you will. If this passes RFD, I'll happily return it to RFV for citing; I'm just saying it seems demanding to ask people to cite a word that's on the chopping-block anyway. —Ruakh TALK 14:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved to RFD. —Ruakh TALK 13:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. —Ruakh TALK 13:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Cited, FWIW. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, even if our English entry is deleted, /  would still need (a) German entr[y/ies] (from Google Books:, , , , ). †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Bah, you just had to prove me wrong, didn't you. :-P  —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 14:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * <tt>;-D</tt>  We’ve the German now. <font style="color:darkred">†  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 15:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

moved to by me for this reason: “The English entry may be deleted very soon; a German term exists as homographic with this alternative English spelling; this page move will preserve the entry’s history.”; both undefined: and undefined: have s. <font style="color:darkred">†  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete The second quotation really demonstrates how wiki is used attributively. What is with moving it to the German capitalization? It stays or goes. —Michael Z. 2009-05-28 04:11 z 

Keep at the complete lowercase for English, apparently. While HTML stands for the markup language, wiki does not. In fact wiki means any "collaborative website which can be directly edited" so it's not apparent that there is a specific wiki markup, namely one based on double-brackets to connect pages. DAVilla 05:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Not apparent because it's not the case. "Wiki markup" in fact refers to any wiki markup. (BTW, I don't understand your statement that "While HTML stands for the markup language, wiki does not." It seems like this argument would also justify an entry for web-page markup, a putative synonym for HTML, since web-page doesn't stand for the markup language. What am I missing?) —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 18:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You're not missing anything, if in fact my premise was wrong as you say. It still feels like a keep to me, but I'm going to have to consider it some more. I don't feel confident voting that way without a good reason. DAVilla 01:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If wiki markup means “markup used in a wiki”, then it is simple sum-of-parts, and needn't be defined. If capitalized Wiki markup means “markup used in WikiMedia sites” or “in Wikipedia” or whatever, then it is a straight attributive mention of a proper entity, and shouldn't be defined.  Let's forget about this one, and consider adding wikitext. —Michael Z. 2009-05-31 04:32 z 


 * Okay, delete the entry, but keep the citations. DAVilla 16:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed English section, citations moved to Citations:wiki markup. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 16:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Markup
Of the five citations on that page, three suggest the correct spelling is actually with a hyphen, not with a space. -- Prince Kassad 14:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * And the two that do have the string "Wiki Markup", with a space, are using it English contexts: one has "Wiki Markup Editor", and one has "Wiki Markup Language". (Those English phrases are embedded in otherwise German sentences, but that doesn't make "Wiki Markup" German, any more than the existence of à la mode makes à English.) In all fairness, the 2009 cite comes from a book that, a few pages later, does use "Wiki Markup" on its own (in the sentence, “Durch die Verwendung der Wiki Markup entsteht ein an Foren angelehnter Thread-Modus mit einem Thema und eingerückten Kommentaren der Benutzer”&lrm;), but I couldn't find other cites that do so. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 00:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry moved redirectlessly to [[Wiki-Markup]]. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 00:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)