DPWiki talk:Editing

From DPWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Kraester 01:39, 20 May 2006 (PDT) I saw on the WikiMedia editing page a statement that Wiki markup should be used instead of HTML markup when possible. I've noticed, however, that a number of the pages in our DPWiki have used HTML markup extensively, and since our foofing markup more closely aligns with HTML than the wiki markup, I thought maybe we might want to consider some discussion of the pros/cons of HTML markup versus wiki markup here on our DPWiki:Editing page. Just a thought.

Many entries use HTML markup because that was the easiest way to automatically convert phpBB's bbCode to Wiki (and my script was far from perfect, as I'm sure you've noticed...). I think using wiki markup is best, mostly because it removes a technical barrier to editing. Take, for example, the missing pages wiki: I hope that
====[[pm:1234|bluetea]]====
I '''really''' need these missing pages badly:
* Page 7
* Page 8
* Page 9¾
is easier for someone unfamiliar with wiki-markup and bbCode to edit than
------------------------
[color=red][size=15][url=http://www.pgdp.net/phpBB2/privmsg.php?mode=post&u=1234]bluetea[/url][/size][/color]

I [b]really[/b] need this missing pages badly:
[list]
[*] Page 7
[*] Page 8
[*] And page 9, because 7-8-9 in my copy!
[/list]
Mikeyc21 02:00, 20 May 2006 (PDT)
Ah, I see my point was unclear. (Brain fog). I agree that the "we" should encourage wiki-markup, but my point is that since many people may already be familiar with HTML, such as PPers for creating the HTML version of texts and people such as myself who have just picked up some HTML along the way for other reasons, and since some HTML tags DO work, and since I found the list of HTML tags that do work to be much more prominently displayed (and easily accessible) on the WikiMedia Help site than was the admonition that wiki-markup is preferred over HTML, I just thought it might be useful to have a sentence on the "Editing Help" page that explicitly stated something like "please use wiki-markup instead of HTML markup whenever possible." At the time I wrote my initial discussion message, I didn't know how much of the remaining HTML you were still planning on removing, but I just thought I'd mention it.
Having said that, I'll agree that list markup seems a lot less technical in wiki-text than in HTML, but I don't know how I'll ever keep '''this''' and ''this'' straight. Give me <b>this</b> and <i>this</i> any day! For what it's worth. Kraester 16:52, 20 May 2006 (PDT)
Is this only relevant to quotes for italics and bold vs HTML tags <i> and <b>? What about cases where you'd need to show Smallcaps for an example, such as at Guide to smallcaps - could we use HTML tag <span>? camomiletea 18:42, 23 May 2006 (PDT)


Lists

No numbers
* Level 1
** Level 2
*** Level 3
Numbers
# Level 1
## Level 2a
## Level 2b


  • Level 1
    • Level 2
      • Level 3


  1. Level 1
    1. Level 2a
    2. Level 2b


Section headings

"In general, you should use Level 1 headings =Like This= for main structural categories, and more equals signs for smaller subdivisions of those pieces."

In general, I find

Level 1 headings

a bit loud. Mind if I change this to

Level 2?

Wwoods 13:04, 20 May 2006 (PDT)


Substitutes

Can we document all the substitutes here somewhere?

I mean i.e. [[team:<teamname>]]

Txwikinger 09:01, 21 May 2006 (PDT)

See Shortcuts for linking to DP. Mikeyc21 09:21, 21 May 2006 (PDT)

Level of complexity

I think that recent additions to this page, especially wrt transclusion and magic tags, might be decreasing its accessability. When I created it, it was supposed to be a quick, basic introduction to wikitext. Perhaps that's not a goal worth aiming for… Mike (talk) 05:58, 30 May 2006 (PDT)

That argues for diversification. Right now, it's ended up being the link from every Edit window, our basic Editing Help page. Frankly, it might be better living in Help:Editing anyway, with detailed/advanced material spawned in a tree of sub-pages? Vaguery 06:05, 30 May 2006 (PDT)
I see it as the basic recipe book for things that are widely used. Lists, section headings, etc. It should have pointers to the advanced stuff (eg transclusion) rather than trying to cover it directly. On the other hand, a basic section on templates might be useful. Lpryor 06:08, 30 May 2006 (PDT)
I agree. Personally, I like how this is set up (with the exception of 'lists' being discussed in two places on the page). The basic stuff that can be covered quickly, like basic links, indenting, section headers, etc. is covered in a fair amount detail in a pretty small amount of space. On the other hand, the more specialized links to DP Content outside the Wiki and they extremely handy, but a tad more special-purpose, Transclusion topics are just introduced on this page and have links to where more detailed information/examples can be obtained. I did also add some "see also" links at the very bottom of the page to other information that I thought would be helpful to people who are creating Wiki pages. I sure have found those pages handy, but maybe they are out of place on a page which concentrates on Editing topics? Just a thought. kraester 07:48, 5 June 2006 (PDT)

American and British spellings

WHY do people feel the need to go around changing my perfectly correct spelling? Are Americans really so egocentric that they think the whole DP website (and probably the whole world) should conform to their usage, or are they too ignorant to know that other spellings even exist? This is a WIKI. It's for EVERYBODY. </rant> Laurawisewell 09:00, 14 April 2007 (PDT)

I do think that there are quite a few people who think that all "documentation" (in its broadest sense) on DP's site should use American spellings. I think this is partly because we are a non-profit under U.S. law and because our servers have always been U.S.-based, but I think most of it is a carryover from when we used to officially be part of PG. PG is always very careful to emphasize that it follows U.S. law, especially with regards to copyrights, and I think that historical foundation/grounding in the U.S. from PG is going to take a fair amount of time to overcome here at DP.
But that's really all beside the point because you're right; this is a Wiki. Anyone can change (just about) anything! If you don't like how someone changed an article, change it right back to what YOU want it to be. -- kraester 12:15, 14 April 2007 (PDT)
I wouldn't mind nearly as much if they were editing to add content of their own, or to fix a genuine typo, and then "fixed" the British spellings while they were at it (perhaps their spellchecker prompted them to). But editing solely to Americanise the document? (And yes, I did mean to spell that "ise" thankyou.) No, I don't want to change it back. I wouldn't edit just to change something already correct to something also correct. Laurawisewell 13:01, 14 April 2007 (PDT)
Ah, well, a fair number of people make edits just based on "style," and the changes related to American/British spellings are just one small illustration of that. I've seen a lot of pages where just something like "which" was changed to "that," "a few" was changed to "some," "Post-Processing" was changed to "Post-processing," and many, many other similar types of style changes. I must admit that I sometimes do that kind of thing myself on occasion, in the interest of "consistentcizing." I remember an evening where I changed all sorts of "em dash" spellings to "em-dash" to be more consistent with the spelling used in the Guidelines. That kind of "minimal" page editing is one of the reasons why there is the "minor edit" option box in the editing interface. And I'm not sure people's behavior/habit in making "style" types of edits would be easy to change.... -- kraester 19:12, 14 April 2007 (PDT)

What is going on here? Can't edit something

There's a typo in the third paragraph of "Transcluding Information" - the first word should be For. BUT, when I ask to edit it, I am given only the first paragraph. Am I doing something wrong? Bess (talk) 08:46, 30 January 2016 (EST)

---

The first 3 paragraphs are themselves transcluded from another DP Wiki entry. When you ask to edit that section you get a single paragraph containing:

  • the instruction to transclude the other information (spaces added to prevent actual transclusion from occurring): { { :transclusion } }
  • the final paragraph of the entry.

To edit it you need to edit the DP Wiki page named Transclusion (e.g., www.pgdp.net/wiki/Transclusion). Then it will be fixed in all the places that transclude that text. wfarrell (talk) 09:56, 30 January 2016 (EST)


Thanks! Sorted out the typo Bess (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2016 (EST)