Erik Moeller wrote:
David-
It seems to me that the syntax for templates, image thumbnails, tables, and mathematic formulas have already made the wikitext hard to read and understand for new users.
Not really. Templates hide complexity and give ordinary users the power to quickly make use of things like nicely formatted infoboxes without knowing anything about the HTML. I have to admit that I am not a big fan of our table syntax, however; I'm as geeky as they come and I still fall back to HTML every now and then. The reStructured Text syntax is much lovelier, albeit easy to mess up:
+------------------------+------------+----------+----------+ | Header row, column 1 | Header 2 | Header 3 | Header 4 | | (header rows optional) | | | | +========================+============+==========+==========+ | body row 1, column 1 | column 2 | column 3 | column 4 | +------------------------+------------+----------+----------+ | body row 2 | Cells may span columns. | +------------------------+------------+---------------------+ | body row 3 | Cells may | - Table cells | +------------------------+ span rows. | - contain | | body row 4 | | - body elements. | +------------------------+------------+---------------------+ http://docutils.sourceforge.net/docs/ref/rst/restructuredtext.html#tables
Still, I think a combination of something like this for quick tables, and HTML hidden in templates for complex ones would be best.
Like templates, image tags have also reduced the amount of visible HTML in articles - don't you remember when we cleaned out all the <div style="float:right"> tags? This is a good thing. Surely you're not suggesting there's a need for empirical proof that added complexity deters newbies? I hold that truth to be self-evident, but in case you don't, browse around a TWiki or TikiWiki site sometime.
I believe that in the long term, we must entirely eliminate HTML from all regular pages and limit its use exclusively to templates. For this, we need to make some improvements to the template syntax (default values, loops, conditions) so that all current HTML content can be moved there and used dynamically.
Things which need a clean wikitext replacement:
- — (my suggestion: --)
- (my suggestion: __)
- <br> (my suggestion: \)
...
The -{en-us colors; en-gb colours}- of the U.S. flag are red, white and blue.
I think you won't find any supporters for that scheme ;-). Even though we have ugliness in some articles, our sentences are at least readable. The current situation with regard to spelling is somewhat dissatisfactory to consistency nuts like ourselves, but aside from auto-conversion for the most common words (which would probably take too much performance to be worthwhile), I really see no good solution.
Regards,
Erik
I've just had an idea:
Why not use templates as the solution? Put the dialect-specific code in the templates, and just put {{ }} around words that vary by dialect. That can't be any worse than '' '' for italics, can it? That would solve probably 90% of the cases.
Thus, for our example sentence, we would have something like
The {{colour}}s of the U.S. flag are red, white, and blue.
And the colour template would have the dialect-specific code like
-{en-us color; en-gb colour}-
Similarly, {{zucchini}} could be
Of course, then we would have to agree on what to call the templates, but that seems like a much easier problem to deal with. At the very least, {{color}} could just include the {{colour}} template, or vice-versa.
- David