Xenharmonic Wiki talk:Conventions

From Xenharmonic Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

List model

Can we talk about Xenharmonic Wiki:Conventions#Lists? Why is it discouraged to use standard Wikitext lists?? Can we have a vote or something? —Keenan Pepper (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

FREEZE used the truly standard list model. We should all trust FREEZE. PiotrGrochowski (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I think FREEZE is simply wrong about this. It's just bullshit and has nothing to do with the wiki idea. (I hope you were just kidding, Piotr) --Xenwolf (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Nope. The standard list model really is the most reliable. Ever heard of Internet Explorer 6? PiotrGrochowski (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I literally don't understand this argument at all because the rendered Wikimedia page from a list with asterisks has exactly the form <ul><li>...</li><li>... So which one is used in the wikitext can't possibly have an effect on how it renders in IE6 or whatever. It's exactly the same once it's rendered and is only different when editing the source. —Keenan Pepper (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Actually, due to several curses, not even IE8 can render the entire wiki. See https://i.imgur.com/QgCnKcX.png. I think it means "I don't like this webpage, leave me alone.". PiotrGrochowski (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
This proves nothing. Try to view normal Wikipedia pages (I just did) and you'll see the same effect. The problem seems to be caused by the https protocol that is not supported in IE before version 9 (just guessing). --Xenwolf (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely yes (to Keenan): I love the "inoffical lists" and hate the <ul><li></li></ul> stuff. Why make it so complicated??? Wiki means fast. I don't see anythong faster than placing * at the beginning of the listed items. I'm not aware that this was being discussed somewhere. --Xenwolf (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
The "FREEZE" thing was just me and Tyler playing with this until we got it to work. We never intended for these conventions to become standardized, it was just the easiest way to parse. Mike Battaglia (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
In case it is relevant it is dead easy to turn lists in HTML format into wikitext using this online conversion tool [1] - it could also be useful if one wants to copy / paste a list one has already in that format into a wiki. Indeed it works pretty well for converting an entire page in html into wikitext - you need a bit of tidying up but it's a lot faster than doing the markup yourself.
The other way round, converting wikitext to html - they don't offer a conversion but don't need to - the wiki software does it for you, just use view source. Robertinventor (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Informal poll

In favor of MediaWiki's built-in list feature (*,#) lists (4): User:Keenan Pepper, User:Xenwolf, User:Mike_Battaglia, User:Joemcmahon User:Robertinventor

In favor of HTML-style (<ul><li>...) lists (1): User:PiotrGrochowski

In favor of plaintext (•item<br>•...) lists (0):

In favor of defined ([[File:Listitem.png]]item<br>...) lists (0):

In favor of Template:List ({{List|item|...}}) lists (1): User:PiotrGrochowski

Should we imitate FREEZE artefacts?

In my opinion this would be contra-productive. Every wiki syntax aims to be as simple as possible and obvious also in the wiki text. You get the idea of markup's purpose easily. Ans it's easy to adapt for people new to the wiki ho to achieve a goal. It's normally not necessary to know HTML tags for editing wiki content. That's why lists should be created the wiki way (using * and #).
--Xenwolf (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I will always make lists with the proper, canonical syntax. What languages do various users know? is my page, therefore it is very clean, using the standard list model. PiotrGrochowski (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
No, we should not imitate "FREEZE artefacts." FREEZE artefacts are just things that I screwed up. We should make it right. Mike Battaglia (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
As a wiki author (as in, I've _written_ one of these), thepoint of wiki syntax at all is to permit you to write pages quickly without having to actually write syntactically-valid HTML. If there was no utility to adding wiki markup, it wouldn't have been added at all, and we'd just be opening edit boxes to paste in HTML. Which we would all have to always get right. Which we mostly would not, and would then spend time dorking with instead of writing about tunings. Wiki list markup, which is implemented in this wiki, is there to allow you to concentrate on providing content. Insisting on working against the tool, i.e., the wiki, by forcing HTML markup is counterproductive because it doesn't need to be done, and doing it is slower to write, and harder to update. And updating is the point of using a wiki at all. FREEZE is not a standard. It was a programming shortcut; insisting that it's a reason to hardcode HTML smacks of "I want to do this so I'm finding a reason" not "there is no other way to do this so I've adopted this workaround". There is no need for a workaround. Use the tools. Unless the markup cannot be done with wiki markup, it should not be there. Joemcmahon (talk)
As I said, I'm not using some old fashioned, rusty wikispaces syntax. PiotrGrochowski (talk) 05:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
This is definitely not "some old-fashioned wikispaces syntax". It's used by lots of simplified markup languages also used by Markdown. On the contrary, most wiki engines use it, please have a look at wikimatrix.org. Maybe it's time to give in now, isn't it?
Best --Xenwolf (talk) 10:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Except that while wikispaces was an educational simplified markup language, wikitext (the system used by MediaWiki) shouldn't be treated as one. I think FREEZE was right, it turned the childish wikispaces syntax into the proper wikitext syntax that probably didn't work in wikispaces.
Here are a few more reasons to use wiki text The wikitext requires fewer charactrs to type, is easier for a newbie to use, is easier to read on the page, and also - it always gives syntactically correct htrml. If everyone used the html then the pages would be full of syntactical errors as few have the eye for detail to type syntactically correct html free hand unless they compose it in an external html editor and import it into the wiki text, which rather defeats the purpose. If we add a visual editor then it will generate wikitext rather than html. If you want to write your lists as html - I suggest you then convert them to wikitext using an html to wikitext conversion tool. The mediawiki software will then convert them back to syntatctically correct html when the page is presented. Sometimes the html tags are useful, for instance div tags, for doing things that are not possible within wikitext. However the usual approach is to wrap up all the html details into templates as those are the least error prone. Tags are still used in wikitext in places, e.g. the <math> and <ref> tags and indeed the <nowiki> tag and extensions introduce new tags such as the <poem> if you install the Poem extension, also <sup> and <sub> are often used for simple mathematical expressions in place of the Latex formulae, to take some examples. But it's usually to do things you can't do in wikitext. It's not the most syntactically elegant of systems I know, but it's one people are familiar with from Wikipedia and wikis generally, and far easier for newbies to use correctly, because it's almost impossible to make syntactically incorrect wikitext except with misplaced tags. Robertinventor (talk) 13:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Best explanation I read so far. :) --Xenwolf (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm smart and don't need the wikispaces style lists. They're actually one of the biggest mistakes of the wikitext format in my opinion. Wikitext allows all list models listed in List model, by the way. PiotrGrochowski (talk) 15:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

What is the "Xenharmonic Wiki" Namespace for?

When do we use this instead of making a regular page? Mike Battaglia (talk) 19:41, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

It's for meta stuff that is not in the Help namespace. Pages that describe the project, pages that are not itself about microtonal or xenharmonic topics. Sometimes it's hard to decide if something is help-only or not. --Xenwolf (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)