Single-equal-sign sections: not documented? working?

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

passing values to template

Re: [Mediawiki-l] worm or spammers?

Matt England

21 May 2005 21 May '05

7:16 p.m.

Single-equal-sign sections: (Example: = Section1 = == Section 2 == ) I see they are not documented (and I didn't know until just yesterday that they actually *work*): http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Editing#Sections.2C_paragraphs.2C_lists… Because of this, I have created a LOT of content on my wiki that presumed that "== Section1 ==" was the first-level section, and now I'm a bit of a quandary. My new users are mixing "=" and "==" sections, and things are getting out of whack when authors/editors are not paying attention. Further, if I want to get everything "right" again one has to do a LOT of manual editing. Before anyone on my site goes to do this, I ask: are "=" sections bona fide markup that will be supported in all future revisions? If so, I kind of have a mess on my hands. To this end: is it worth updating the above docs so that others may not experience the same problem? -Matt

Show replies by date

Lee Daniel Crocker

21 May 21 May

9:27 p.m.

New subject: [Mediawiki-l] Single-equal-sign sections: not documented? working?

On Sat, 2005-05-21 at 14:16 -0500, Matt England wrote:

...

Before anyone on my site goes to do this, I ask: are "=" sections bona fide markup that will be supported in all future revisions?

The syntax I'm working on eliminates them, but otherwise they are semantically equivalent to == sections. -- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee(a)piclab.com> <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/>

Matt England

9:29 p.m.

New subject: [Mediawiki-l] Single-equal-sign sections: not documented? working?

At 5/21/2005 04:27 PM, Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:

...

On Sat, 2005-05-21 at 14:16 -0500, Matt England wrote:

Before anyone on my site goes to do this, I ask: are "=" sections bona fide markup that will be supported in all future revisions?

The syntax I'm working on eliminates them,

I'm not sure what this means. Does this mean some future revision of Mediawiki (I'm currently using 1.4.0) will not support "="...or something else?

...

but otherwise they are semantically equivalent to == sections.

Yongho Kim

9:42 p.m.

New subject: [Mediawiki-l] Single-equal-sign sections: not documented? working?

double equal signs mark the text up as <h2> single equal signs mark it as <h1> MediaWiki marks the page title (sitting at the beginning of #bodyContent ) as h1. It makes semantic sense that you wouldn't use any more h1s once you've used one for the page title, and mark double equal signs as h2 and recommend their use as first-level sections. And then, I think it's ok to keep the single equal signs as they may occassionally be needed (e.g. multiple documents in a single page, for example, in which case each document title would be h1-ized), even though, generally you wouldn't need multiple h1s in a mediawiki document. yongho On 5/22/05, Matt England <mengland(a)mengland.net> wrote:

...

At 5/21/2005 04:27 PM, Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:

On Sat, 2005-05-21 at 14:16 -0500, Matt England wrote:

Before anyone on my site goes to do this, I ask: are "=" sections bona fide markup that will be supported in all future revisions?

The syntax I'm working on eliminates them,

I'm not sure what this means. Does this mean some future revision of Mediawiki (I'm currently using 1.4.0) will not support "="...or something else?

but otherwise they are semantically equivalent to == sections.

I guess I'm not sure what this means, either, but for what it's worth, I'm find that "=" sections have distinctively different behavior then "==" sections on my 1.4.0 wiki site (the "==" are subsections of "="). -Matt _______________________________________________ MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l(a)Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l

Matt England

9:55 p.m.

New subject: [Mediawiki-l] Single-equal-sign sections: not documented? working?

Ok, this makes a lot of sense, and seems to clear things up. -Matt At 5/21/2005 04:42 PM, Yongho Kim wrote:

...

At 5/21/2005 04:27 PM, Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:

On Sat, 2005-05-21 at 14:16 -0500, Matt England wrote:

Before anyone on my site goes to do this, I ask: are "=" sections bona fide markup that will be supported in all future revisions?

The syntax I'm working on eliminates them,

I'm not sure what this means. Does this mean some future revision of Mediawiki (I'm currently using 1.4.0) will not support "="...or

something else?

but otherwise they are semantically equivalent to == sections.

_______________________________________________ MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l(a)Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l

Lee Daniel Crocker

11:43 p.m.

New subject: [Mediawiki-l] Single-equal-sign sections: not documented? working?

On Sat, 2005-05-21 at 16:29 -0500, Matt England wrote:

...

Before anyone on my site goes to do this, I ask: are "=" sections bona fide markup that will be supported in all future revisions?

The syntax I'm working on eliminates them,

I'm not sure what this means. Does this mean some future revision of Mediawiki (I'm currently using 1.4.0) will not support "="...or something else?

That's my hope; but whether the developer community as a whole takes my ideas seriously or not is an open question.

...

but otherwise they are semantically equivalent to == sections.

Hmm. Then that's different from what I expect. I would have expected single-= sections to be treated exactly the same as double-= sections. -- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee at piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/> <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/>

Phil Boswell

23 May 23 May

7:03 a.m.

New subject: [Mediawiki-l] Re: Single-equal-sign sections: not documented? working?

"Lee Daniel Crocker" <lee(a)piclab.com> wrote in message news:1116710842.11592.1.camel@shuttle.piclab.com...

...

On Sat, 2005-05-21 at 14:16 -0500, Matt England wrote:

Before anyone on my site goes to do this, I ask: are "=" sections bona fide markup that will be supported in all future revisions?

The syntax I'm working on eliminates them, but otherwise they are semantically equivalent to == sections.

Please don't do that, they happen to be very useful. The particular instance which springs to mind is on talk pages for templates, to demarcate between =Documentation= and =Discussion=. Because the "Add a comment" function, available through the "+" button, adds comments at the "==" level, it is handy to document the template at the start of the talk page and insert "=Discussion=" after, so that further comments fall properly into line. The top-level header is a part of Mediawiki syntax, even if it is not used in many places: please don't fiddle with it without considering all possible consequences. -- Phil [[en:User:Phil Boswell]]

Lee Daniel Crocker

4:19 p.m.

New subject: [Mediawiki-l] Re: Single-equal-sign sections: not documented? working?

...

> The syntax I'm working on eliminates them, but otherwise they > are semantically equivalent to == sections.

...

Any suggestions I make about the new syntax are just that--what gets implemented is up to the real working developers, and I'm not really in that loop anymore. I'm sure the developers will also listen to the overall will of the users as well. But your particular example does not convince me that H1s are a useful thing--the exact functionality you cite could be made to work a level lower. If an editor thinks he wants a heading that is indistinguishable from the article title, and that splits the auto-toc, then that editor just hasn't properly broken his subject into pages. -- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee at piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/> <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/>

6917

days inactive

6919

days old

mediawiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

7 comments

4 participants

tags (0)

participants (4)

Lee Daniel Crocker
Matt England
Phil Boswell
Yongho Kim