649:- I do a lot of training with new users. When I show them the syntax highlighting that's available from WikEd gadget (that new users are almost certainly not going to find on their own), they find it makes editing a lot easier, and even wonder why the default setting makes wikitext to hard to read. They have to pay the price of WikEd's dozens and dozens of confusing, scary buttons, but that's the choice we offer them at the moment. Anything that helps new users see what's going on and makes wikitext (not just references) less intimidating will result in fewer disillusioned newcomers.
173:) that highlights many different kinds of syntax that could be used for this proposal. However, some editors expressed that its current state would be problematic because 1) It highlights too much text at once and some editors have expressed that this might be confusing, 2) Making changes would require customization of the program, which some (but not all) users would be prepared to do, and 3) The program is only reliably functional in Firefox, and has unreliable or no functionality in other web browsers (
2697:
2769:
2175:: as I said above, WikEd syntax highlighting is a blessing for new users, and the more we can get that functionality available as a default, the better. It's sad to see a user build up enthusiasm for contributing to Knowledge, click "edit" on an ordinary article, then be confronted with Infobox syntax and have to scroll through it before they see something they can parse as text. More than just "consider", please.
2606:, it is likely to fall on deaf ears unless there is strong consensus coming from a large number of editors because they say they are strapped for resources. So until that happens, I'm afraid there won't be any specific implementation available to see or test. The only other possibility is finding other individuals on Knowledge who have the skills to begin making such a function, which I have been trying to do.
2589:
wonderful rich text workarounds on other sites that never entirely work as expected, and while this isn't anything that fancy, the inherent problems are the same. That
Remember the dot and Cacycle had to come up with rather unexpected workarounds just so the highlighting in their scripts (that syntax highlighter and WikiEd) didn't break browsers' undo/redo is a perfect example of that. -—
1579:. I realise that the kind of people who comment on RfCs tend to be experienced editors who are already comfortable with their UI, and UI change frequently meets strong resistance from established users - but turning it on by default is the only way such a feature would ever reach most new editors, and the experienced editors should easily find where to turn it off if they don't like it.
31:
2073:, headers, and many others. While this question is not intended to immediately extend the proposed function, it opens the idea that this function, with future consensus, could be expanded to fit other kinds of common syntax. Participants who support this idea are free to specify which kinds of syntax might be useful to differentiate under the Discussion header.
2799:, which really makes it a no-go. It's also a unnecessary heavy package to load, so I really like the simplicity of Remember the dot's implementation, and it would be great if we could work towards a stable release enabled by default. One feature that could be borrowed from AceWikiEditor is a toolbar button to enable/disable syntax highlightening. –
177:), and 4) Computers with insufficient memory may find editing to be a sluggish task, and when a lot of highlighting is required, the program terminates. Still, I use the syntax highlighter, and to be quite frank, I think it's nothing less than amazing, so I think it can be repurposed or implemented in some form.
130:. A total of 14 editors explicitly supported the proposal and zero editors opposed it. It was also suggested that this be brought to RfC to get a wider response from the community. A unique project page was created because implementation of this function will affect nearly all editors who use the text editor.
1596:: as long as this functionality is more helpful to editors with not-so-well-developed computer skills (advanced users can achieve this with external scripts or even external editor), I find the "enabled" default a saner choice. Syntax highlighting won't be disturbing wast majority of editors anyway. —
2897:
I have used AceWikiEditor for a few days and came away fairly impressed. An issue that definitely needs to be resolved is speed--it takes seconds to load, and if I start typing things before it finishes loading, it would reset the cursor position when it has finished loading, which is undesirable. It
2151:
I use a text editor called
Programmer's Notepad in place of the default notepad. This program has various modules for various languages, but one of the amazing features is the pairing of brackets/parenthesis. Each opening bracket is paired with the respective closing bracket as one colour. This would
2103:
For the same reasons as I support the other proposals, above. A study should be undertaken to see how to optimise this. It's a highly technical matter; but it should not be left in the hands of the tech-head high-priestly caste, as far too many decisions are for the
Wikipedian infrastructure. Editors
1984:
I note elsewhere that you support this as long as it is not default. I don't think this is going to be enabled yet as default in core MediaWiki. It might be enabled as a default gadget. That means both registered and IP users would see highlighted reference wikitext. Registered users would be able to
1221:
new addition that has the potential to carry risk to usability. And if that was our response to potential improvements, it's unlikely
Knowledge would have grown at all. But I think if enough people, like you and I'm sure many others on here, care about reduced usability from differentiating syntax,
2584:
Can we see the implementation before deciding if we want this on for everyone by default? People appear to have been voting purely on the intent of the thing, which is certainly fine when deciding whether or not to go into development, but it doesn't really get us any further than that since at this
1182:
Somehow I doubt someone (or a group of someones) would force an implementation -- one that would affect pretty much all editors -- that would "wash out" entirely were it to impact a significant number of users. Sure, some bugs might come up, but they already come up with lots of things on
Knowledge
529:
This is a no-brainer. Why was it not done long ago? And don't hold your breath waiting on a visual editor. Look at Wikia and its neverending problems with its visual editor. I have edited a longtime at Wikia and, like many editors, I have turned off the visual editor in my preferences since it is so
2628:
That's fine, and a consensus that we want to go forward would be needed regardless; I guess what I'm afraid of is that somewhere down the line someone will take the current discussion on whether or not to turn the theoretical thing on by default and use it to get something tangible and buggy turned
2534:
It would be nice to be able to either switch each component independantly, or choose our own colours for each component, with a reasonable default that is sufficient to identify, but not so in your face as to be distracting. Acessability for visually impaired should be considered. Selectable colurs
2657:
I'm going to see if I can contact someone from bugzilla to comment here, though I find the interface hard to navigate and difficult to identify someone who might be willing to participate here. Until then, I think it's fair to say that something would not be implemented for all users if it caused
2029:
This isn't going to work. Javascript syntax highlighters never entirely work, and certainly not without side effects, regardless of how brilliant the implementation. As there is no implementation as yet, this vote is at best moot and at worst paving the way for enabling broken functionality, since
670:
in web and code editors, and powerful text editors for many years. I could never understand why it was not implemented for
Knowledge. WE are only talking about making the references stand out - everyone who has ever reviewed a big GA or a FA will immediately understand the benefits.
204:
Rendering reference text in a different color would have multiple benefits for all editors, regardless of their degree of experience with
Knowledge. First, new editors creating a new article who are unfamiliar with reference text would quickly be able to differentiate between explicitly displayed
2588:
Mind, if this were something else, that wouldn't be such an issue, but scripts mucking with the text box tend to be buggy by their very nature, not in the least because every browser handles forms and javascript differently, and every OS handles input differently. This is why there are all these
2044:
I agree with Isarra. We can get consensus to ask developers to implement this tool without having to decide right now, without seeing the actual implementation, whether to turn it on by default for everyone. If / when the functionality is developed, that can be handled rather simply via another
1112:
Furthermore, I have found wikEd to be incompatible with some browsers on some systems, and therefore turn it on/off depending on my needs. Enabling functionalities that may not be compatible with all browsers would just have the opposite of the desired effect upon newcomers and discourage them.
578:
I wish I lived in your magical world where anything is possible and the only constraint is consensus. Now there are workarounds to make this sort of thing work reliably cross-browser, but if you have the resources required to do that, you might as well use them to make a full-out visual editor,
1344:
No, objective is considering the benefits vs disadvantages of the product from the point of view of the editors who would use it, and that is how new ideas at
Knowledge pass from the proposal stage through to final implementation. Whether it is technically feasible or not is not up for
511:- Strong, strong support, actually. I was just thinking a day or two ago how much easier life would be when I was wading through a massive paragraph overstuffed with reference templates if all the ref text was in red. BTW, make sure the feature works for those of us who use the < ref: -->
2085:
the key word being "consider". I'm all for a more clear editing interface, and there are a few ways that further differentiation would help. But it really is a case by case basis. Really we should be striving for WYSIWYG because that would maximize the clarity of the syntax in most cases.
1289:
Isara, these are the kind of negative approaches and comments that stall RfCs and prevent progress on
Knowledge - I suggest first understanding the use of this feature objectively , and worrying yourself about the implementation later, rather than just voting per 'I don't like it'.
2704:
tags were coloured it would be a huge step in the right direction. This RfC is looking for a consensus - it would be inappropriate here to begin discussing the technical implementation here, but I'll hasten to add that this would be an implementation for the benefit of
1304:
Out of curiosity, would you also say I were standing in the way of
Progress were I pointing out that it is premature to vote on how many unicorns every new user gets because despite the fact that we have consensus to give them unicorns, we don't actually have any unicorns yet? -—
2475:
I just tried Remember the Dot's syntax highlighter, and I find it to be quite overwhelming, especially when editing a large article. If we try to give everything fancy colors in the edit window, it will become hard to see the references—the main part to be highlighted.
217:
also considered that implementing this function may increase editing participation due to ease of use of the editing interface. Furthermore, the function would be implemented as a gadget, and could be turned on and off by individual users under their preferences.
142:, an initiative by the WMF to engage new users in an effective and inviting manner. Many such questions I have encountered there deal with the confusion of trying to get references into articles or how to edit articles with many references in them already (e.g.
2816:
I added that to my common.js page, and it's brilliant! It does have a downside: it changed the font and made it smaller, which is really annoying. Still, this looks really good. The color choices could be better, but already it makes editing much easier. :) •
1950:
2270:
as long as it's customizable: should be able to opt out of individual components (such as info boxes); should be able to customize colors. We're not likely to find colors that please everyone, and there are accessibility issues with color blindness etc. —
2844:
Yes, thanks enormously for bringing this into the discussion. I haven't tested it yet, but it proves that it can be done whichever software solution is ultimately developed for it. How we ever lived without it for so many years is an enigma.
1412:
2008:. There is no implementation yet. How the heck can we decide if it should be turned on by default? What if it causes the editing window to load much more slowly (like wikEd)? What if it doesn't work reliably? This part of the RfC is premature, IMO.
2898:
also seems to interfere with Firefox's Find feature, which makes it difficult to get to and replace specific text. Generally, it has done a lot to reduce my scepticism, but these are things that should be fixed in final the implementation.
1183:
and they get dealt with. This perceived fear of something that hasn't even happened yet seems ungrounded to me. Or in metaphor terms, why would someone install a fantastically broken traffic light, if they know it's broken beyond repair?
1872:. It may be easy to check a checkbox, but I suspect that heaps of users take weeks or months to get around to tweaking their preferences about. I know I'd racked up an awful lot of edits before I started playing around with preferences!
1546:
Absolutely. So many bogglingly useful features go unactivated, such as the better options for watchlists and recent changes (study the details in your preferences, guys ☺). Let this not be among them. An obvious candidate for elevation to
1248:
My response is what it has been all along: confusion. Why are people voting to turn on something that hasn't been implemented? This particular part of it I certainly have no objections to, however. There was just this shiny metaphor... -—
2469:
2076:
1885:
1975:
2426:
1770:
1906:
1751:
1683:
1503:
1538:
1456:
1804:
1787:
1725:
1649:
1571:
2017:
1864:
1666:
1588:
1431:
2382:
1944:
1847:
1830:
1816:
1609:
1923:
1700:
1626:
1556:
637:– Support differentiating reference text as a small step. However, I cannot agree with the other proposals per Stephan Schulz's comments as too much differentiation would result in too many colors and too much confusion. --
2506:
2232:
1486:
1477:
2403:
2184:
2095:
2280:
2209:
2776:
I'm glad to see syntax highlightening being discussed, as I find it makes working with references a lot easier. Some time ago I wrote together a simple gadget to do syntax highlightning on Norwegian Knowledge, called
2489:
2523:
2446:
2357:
2340:
2326:
2167:
2143:
1439:- most new editors won't know how to turn on/off gadgets. As the feature is designed with them in mind as well, it should certainly be default for them. However, the option to turn it off should obviously exist. --
1317:
I'm saying that participation in RfCs should at least be objective - irrespective of the fact that I think this would be one of the best enhancements to the editing environment at least since my 7 years here.
2420:
2297:
2113:
809:
Nice to see Knowledge be brought up to the same level as every other code/web editor out there. Must be able to turn off if wanted. Different colours in text does bother or make it hard to read for some people.
2463:
2122:
2314:
2529:
2348:- Highlighting would be good for wikilinks, external (URL) links, and templates. Also possible are bold and italic ... although that may be getting into WYSIWIG editing, which is probably another topic. --
367:
No reason to do without the benefits of colour vision, which has evolved over the aeons just because it enhances detection of features in otherwise undifferentiated foliage – whether of leaves or of text ☺.
1106:- It would be fine to add this type of functionality to an existing gadget like wikEd or as a new standalone gadget, but adding this to the default text editing interface would detract from its simplicity.
1036:
1359:
I personally feel a certain skepticism that the colors will prove helpful rather than distracting--most other use of color in thWP is glaring and inappropriate. But it is reasonable to let them be tried
562:. It highlights much more than just reference syntax. It was discussed in the Village Pump discussion too. Some people in that discussion tested it. So there is something that works partially right now. --
2542:
2497:. To much highlighting is distracting. I would support a configurable highlighter where editors can select which kind of elements they do want highlighted (but with a very restricted default setting). --
950:
784:
486:
1057:
998:
765:
714:
658:
541:
324:
1131:
929:
871:
593:
Well, I see where the magical thinking lies. Wikia has had a visual editor for years now, and it sucks. See my other comments. A visual editor is vastly more complicated than highlighting some text. --
359:
273:
888:
836:
801:
739:
426:
407:
1097:
1015:
671:
Referencing is the most crucial operation in the construction of a new article - make it easier and we'll get more articles, and more referenced articles from beginners and old hands alike.
629:
448:
248:
1091:
981:
964:
900:
641:
469:
214:
127:
1074:
819:
680:
521:
2680:
I wish that were so, but considering what has happened with pending changes, it would seem that major bugs are not necessarily a blocker at all if there is accepted consensus for the concept. -—
558:
My question was "why was it not done long ago?" Your answer is illogical. A logical answer might be that it had not been created yet. But even that would not be entirely accurate. There is this:
503:
912:
307:
294:
47:
and ease of navigation. Should such a function be added to Knowledge? If so, should it be turned on by default for all users? Should other kinds of common syntax be uniquely colored as well?
221:
1996:
2890:
2839:
2854:
2258:
2602:
Your concerns are, of course, legitimate, but I doubt any implementation will be available at all without substantial support on this RfC. If this is something like this is requested at
2907:
2823:
2758:
2288:
Bring Knowledge editing into the late 1980's when other code editors started to use them. Should be able to be turned off. Some people have problems viewing text with multiple colors.
1409:. Newer users may not consider to use it if it is left unchecked as an option under "gadgets" under their preferences. Again, the function could be turned off by any user at any time.
2744:
2054:
1494:
as a sensible default. New users would benefit the most from this, IMO. And advanced users would easily reject the option if they had one, although I'm not sure why they would need to.
1299:
2687:
2675:
2636:
2623:
1278:
1256:
1243:
1212:
1200:
989:
Would make my editing easier. Would also be very useful if it lets you spot unclosed ref tags, as that seems to be a common mistake for new users, and occasional even from experts. --
604:
588:
573:
553:
2573:
2037:
1165:
2557:
152:
434:. Especially helpful for new editors. Personally, I think it would be better to extend the colour change to other markup which will not simply appear as test in the finished page; "
2718:
1354:
1339:
1327:
1312:
1177:
194:
1371:
456:
as an opt-out feature with possibility to tune color scheme with CSS. Color markup feature is very helpful, but people who don't want or need it should be able to avoid it. —
2192:
as nominator, with reasoning above. I should also note that I've found this to be highly useful using the text highlighting program I discussed at the top of this proposal.
2023:
1634:
Another default tool that may help stem the tide of disappearing editors. Or at the very least it will make editing more efficient for the remaining editors since there are
827:- I like the idea of being able to switch on and off, and having a different color (maybe blue or green) will help determine which text is in the reference and which isn't.
2365:
considering this; with a few reservations on such things as choice of colours for the user, not doing too much, etc. I'd quite like the idea of users being able to choose
494:. Try fixing the presentation a well-referenced sentence ,like this. It should be an extremely simple and routine edit. Currently it's not, and this feature would help.
2118:
This is worth investigating, even if nothing comes out of it. Syntax highlighting benefits all editors, including those who don't want to put up with the VisualEditor.
2060:
205:
text and reference syntax. Second, new editors who edit existing articles would be able to more quickly parse and identify sections of text-- this would make articles
2810:
281:- This would help all editors. Staring at a paragraph and trying to relate it to the one you were just looking at before you clicked "edit" is often very difficult. —
1400:
315:
Definitely a high priority. Among many problems, I've often seen good references get broken (accidentally) because subsequent editors don't understand the syntax.
213:), the same idea applies: Parsing through the article, tweaking references, and finding specific sections or sentences would be much easier. Some editors at the
2788:
mw.loader.load('//no.wikipedia.org/search/?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-AceWikiEditor.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&maxage=21600&smaxage=86400');
2651:
2596:
2694:
Nobody has posted an example here, so for the benefit of those who have never seen syntax highlighting, here is a simple piece of HTML as seen in a web editor
2104:
who frequent WT:MOS, for example, include professionals who are not necessarily coding gurus but who are expert in the design and management of such interfaces.
1395:
581:
Mind, having something of this nature, even when not entirely reliable, would still be useful for a lot of folks. You just asked why it hadn't been done yet. -—
2369:
syntax they personally would like differentiated. Checkboxes to include/exclude whatever from the highlighting would make this a really user-designed option.
1140:
Do you drive a car? Imagine a world with traffic lights which instead of colours, had the words STOP, WAIT, GO. Now imagine a world where traffic lights are
2585:
point we simply cannot know how it is going to work cross-platform or what side effects it may have, both generally and on more specific subsets of systems.
1418:
This sort of feature is intended to be used by new editors. I doubt most of them will find a feature like this if it is buried in a cluttered gadgets page.
2873:. Given this service exists and works flexibly across a number of different formats, it would seem very doable to make a similar program for wiki markup.
2390:– It's at least something to consider – maybe an option to turn on (off by default). Even better, you could choose what kinds on highlighting you want. ––
2087:
1960:
1495:
699:
316:
77:
199:
174:
1082:– This can only help. It would save time and lessen the eye strain of differentiating the text from the references, especially in the longer articles.
2644:
Could we get a comment from a developer as to how technically feasible the feature looks to them, especially when combined with existing features? -—
43:
syntax and other text in the editing window, specifically through use of unique font colors, may be beneficial for Knowledge editors on the basis of
2727:
Agreed. And for that matter, it seems overly conservative to me to oppose this on the basis of an implementation that doesn't actually exist yet.
1635:
2289:
2250:
811:
376:
1405:
Turning on text differentiation for references by default would target newer users who, arguably, would benefit from it most on the basis of
170:
1931:– Especially helpful for the new users to be in actually referencing their edits. I do worry about loading speeds, however. Will there be a
1170:
Unfortunately the cost to install those lights results in a road that sometimes flickers between existing and being washed out entirely. -—
844:, including ability to toggle it off for those that choose. Fairly simple and practical solution that older eyes will appreciate as well.
958:. Syntax highlighting is now common place in many text editors, even simple ones. It would greatly help Knowledge; what a great idea! •
159:
908:. It's one of those things where you think "%$ £! me, how did MediaWiki get to be a decade old without acquiring that as an option??"
1795:
Highlighting references promotes best practice (reliable sources and referencing). Everyone would benefit, especially new editors.
559:
1406:
879:
Absolutely great idea. For new editors, for old editors, and to highlight the fact that articles either have or need references.
206:
44:
866:
2869:
for HTML, javascript, and CSS. It works in IE, Firefox, Opera, and Chrome. I'm sure it would work in virtually all others.
209:
and less daunting to new editors. Third, for experienced editors who are editing articles with hundreds of references (e.g.
1959:
on principle. Defaults should be plain, vanilla, and stripped down where feasible. Checkboxes aren't that hard to use. --
155:
89:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2946:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2579:
2399:
1970:
1902:
1053:
709:
2795:
project. The advantage of this approach is that Ace is well-tested and works across browsers, but on the other hand it
2548:
Not hugely user friendly, but no matter what you'll be able to change it with a user css file while you are logged in.
1521:
859:
342:
160:
that it would be incredibly helpful to create a different font color in the text editor for references and regular text
133:
2709:
Wikis. I would guard against asking Bugzilla for input at this stage, let's get a strong consensus for it first.
1345:
discussion here - unless you are on the WMF developer team and you're already looking for reasons to stall the RfC.
396:
Lol. Foraging through the jungle of wikitext foliage our fearless hunter spots the reference and aims carefully... --
920:
I find it increasingly difficult to edit around references since there is no standard format on Knowledge for them.
2564:
The ultimate solution is to make each highlighting customizable, whether using a user interface or even plain CSS.
1525:
346:
1125:
2535:
may be sufficient for this purpose. A toggle button that can be flipped while editing might be nice too. • • •
2162:
2139:
1605:
1023:. Anything which helps the editor(s) to differentiate between article-text and other text has got to be good.
465:
227:
Yes, I think this would help. (Or we could have everyone use list-defined references.) Thank goodness that the
17:
2514:– Maybe. The idea sounds good, especially as an OPTION. Let's get one improvement up and running first, tho.
1914:- Would be helpful to new users; presumably it would be simple enough to turn off if someone didn't want it.
384:
2376:
1879:
1855:- A great improvement like this should be a default so new users can take advantage of it immediately. --
1824:
Yes this makes perfect sense. This was one of my thoughts before I even read this particular proposal. •
1030:
1893:– New users probably would understand references better if they thought, "Why is this highlighted?". ––
146:
143:
1044:– This would really help when editing content on articles (knowing to ignore refs, for example). ––
149:
113:
Should other forms of syntax be uniquely colored as well (e.g. headers, Wikilinks, infoboxes, etc.)?
2834:
2502:
2227:
1765:
1222:
risks can be minimized and prevented. More importantly, the implementation doesn't exist yet. So
947:
779:
482:
73:
2792:
2395:
2180:
2091:
1965:
1898:
1838:
A wall of ref'd text is overwhelming to many regulars, let alone the newcomers. This will help. —
1743:
1679:
1499:
1205:
Because their boss threw a tantrum and agreeing to it was the only way to get him to shut up. -—
1049:
994:
757:
704:
654:
320:
94:
2778:
2370:
1873:
1517:
1449:
1024:
925:
854:
338:
266:
2065:
There are other forms of syntax that are fairly pervasive on Knowledge articles, particularly
2881:
2805:
2735:
2666:
2614:
2539:
2442:
2276:
2200:
1992:
1800:
1783:
1716:
1645:
1568:
1482:
I can't think of any sane reason why one would turn this off. All editors benefit from this.
1269:
1234:
1191:
884:
832:
797:
730:
600:
569:
537:
423:
403:
256:- great helpful idea, and will help identify references to everyone, not just new editors. --
185:
166:
158:. This particular proposal actually came from a user who had a bad experience and suggested
65:
other forms of syntax be uniquely colored as well (e.g. headers, Wikilinks, infoboxes, etc.)?
1674:
If it makes things easy for newcomers, it would be pointless not having it as the default.
1332:
Objective is considering all sides of the matter - that includes technical feasibility. -—
372:
2785:
editor. It's quite rough, and has not been updated for some time, but can be tested using
8:
2829:
2498:
2483:
2353:
2222:
2066:
1860:
1760:
1584:
1564:. I see no reason to hide it. Switchable for the inevitable few who won't want it. • • •
1425:
1120:
1011:
943:
774:
667:
478:
444:
439:" (ie. anything between double curly brackets) would be reasonably simple and inclusive.
300:
242:
69:
2903:
2821:
2754:
2519:
2459:
2435:
I support this as a separate gadget in preferences, as long as it not on by default. --
2391:
2338:
2176:
2160:
2135:
2050:
1940:
1894:
1843:
1828:
1736:
1675:
1601:
1087:
1045:
990:
977:
962:
938:
750:
650:
638:
461:
139:
59:
the text editor have a function to color syntax specifically associated with references
2850:
2714:
2416:
2293:
2254:
2218:
2070:
2013:
1919:
1696:
1691:
Not only for new users, but this would be the most useful editing aid for everyone.
1622:
1529:
1512:
1442:
1350:
1323:
1295:
1161:
1070:
921:
845:
815:
676:
517:
380:
350:
333:
259:
107:
tags, including tags) so it can be differentiated from other text within the article?
100:
Should the text editor have a function to color syntax specifically associated with
2874:
2801:
2728:
2684:
2659:
2648:
2633:
2607:
2593:
2536:
2436:
2272:
2193:
2034:
1986:
1796:
1779:
1709:
1639:
1565:
1336:
1309:
1262:
1253:
1227:
1209:
1184:
1174:
880:
828:
793:
723:
594:
585:
563:
550:
531:
499:
420:
397:
178:
419:. I would really like this functionality to be available. Reasons as above. • • •
228:
2569:
1465:
282:
154:). The other place I've encountered difficulty in the referencing system is the
2553:
2478:
2349:
2310:
1856:
1657:
1580:
1533:
1420:
1223:
1115:
1007:
620:
440:
354:
237:
2749:
Thanks for the example, Kudpung. Yes, it should make editing easier. Support.
2899:
2885:
2818:
2750:
2739:
2670:
2618:
2515:
2455:
2335:
2323:
2204:
2154:
2131:
2046:
1951:
Oppose: differentiated text for references should not be turned on by default
1936:
1839:
1825:
1813:
1720:
1597:
1367:
1273:
1238:
1195:
1083:
973:
959:
897:
734:
457:
189:
102:
40:
2768:
2658:
major bugs. I imagine it would need to go through alpha and beta testing.
2846:
2710:
2696:
2412:
2009:
1915:
1692:
1654:
Yes, though perhaps directly accompanied by an easily findable off-switch.
1618:
1346:
1319:
1291:
1157:
1066:
672:
513:
210:
123:
1413:
Support: differentiated text for references should be turned on by default
117:
2681:
2645:
2630:
2590:
2217:
Because this puts us on the slippery slope to the text editor becoming a
2031:
1935:
test group? or is the plan to implement simultaneously across the board?
1759:
This is best practice, so yes, I think it should be enabled by default.
1333:
1306:
1250:
1206:
1171:
582:
547:
495:
1261:
OK. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
2565:
2246:
2119:
1483:
909:
304:
138:
The motivation behind this proposal comes from my own participation at
2867:
here is an example of an online service that uses syntax highlighting
2549:
2306:
1778:, as long as our Welcome material is clear on how to turn it off. —
122:
The proposal, in a more basic form, was previously discussed at the
2603:
1362:
2470:
Oppose: we should restrict text differentiation to references only
2045:
proposal at VPR. No need to rush to a decision on that right now.
2077:
Support: we should consider differentiating other kinds of syntax
110:
Should this functionality be turned on by default for all users?
2427:
Support other syntax differentiation, but in a different gadget
2913:
2828:
Wow! Thanks for mentioning this; it is indeed really cool.
2242:
1617:- We're trying to get new people to edit and this will help.
579:
which, incidentally, is what the foundation has been doing.
299:
There's a reason why most IDEs and decent text editors have
2870:
2130:: the more syntax is highlighted, the easier editing is. —
972:
I use rememberthedot's script, and love it when it works. —
2030:
there is no telling what side effects this will have. -—
692:
62:
this functionality be turned on by default for all users
2866:
2782:
1224:
asserting that it won't work without an actual program
2322:, but with the option to turn it off if not wanted. —
2629:
on for everyone. Because that sometimes happens. -—
2530:
Discussion of differentiating other kinds of syntax
1098:Oppose: we should not differentiate reference text
2454:Per timeshifter above and stephan schulz below. —
231:is coming out (somewhat) soon. That will make it
222:Support: we should differentiate reference text
2152:be profoundly useful for editing templates. -
437:tags and anything between them, plus templates
165:One other note, there is already a program by
477:, and agree with everything czarkoff said. --
2221:emulation, and that's a good thing.... ;-)
1396:Discussion of differentiating reference text
2797:does have issues with complex characters
2767:
2695:
560:User:Remember the dot/Syntax highlighter
512:system rather than reference templates.
14:
2061:Differentiating other kinds of syntax
1511:Start everyone with the good stuff.--
773:This will make editing much easier.
1985:turn it off since it is a gadget. --
722:as nominator, with reasoning above.
85:The following discussion is closed.
25:
2024:Discussion of default functionality
1708:as nominator with reasoning above.
1401:Default functionality for all users
1217:Of course, we could say that about
23:
2871:The service even has documentation
1006:- Makes editing more efficient. --
106:(i.e. all text within <ref: -->
24:
2956:
2942:The discussion above is closed.
56:There is a wide consensus that:
29:
2929:
2920:
2855:02:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
2840:23:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
2824:22:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
2811:12:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
2759:07:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
2745:00:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
2719:00:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
2688:20:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
2676:19:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
2652:16:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
2637:08:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
2624:08:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
2597:08:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
2574:19:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
2558:16:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
2543:05:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
2507:15:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
2490:23:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
2464:03:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
2447:05:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
2341:22:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
2327:06:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
2315:13:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
2298:07:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
2281:07:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
2259:07:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
2233:06:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
2210:04:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
2185:18:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
2168:15:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
2144:12:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
2123:04:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
2114:03:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
2096:01:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
2055:08:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
2038:16:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
2018:07:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
1997:01:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
1976:00:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
1848:03:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
1831:22:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
1817:06:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
1805:03:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
1788:07:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
1771:06:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
1752:05:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
1734:
1726:04:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
1701:23:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
1684:17:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
1667:07:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
1650:05:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
1636:more articles and less editors
1627:02:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
1610:12:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
1589:09:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
1572:05:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
1557:03:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
1539:02:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
1504:01:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
1487:00:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
1478:00:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
1457:00:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
1432:23:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
1372:23:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
1355:09:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
1340:07:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
1328:06:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
1313:06:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
1300:05:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
1279:07:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
1257:07:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
1244:04:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
1213:04:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
1201:00:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
1178:00:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
1166:23:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
1132:21:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
982:03:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
965:22:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
951:22:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
930:19:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
913:09:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
901:06:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
889:03:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
872:11:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
837:07:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
820:07:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
802:07:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
785:06:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
766:05:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
748:
740:04:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
715:00:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
681:23:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
659:17:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
642:06:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
630:07:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
605:00:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
589:16:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
574:14:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
554:06:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
542:05:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
522:02:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
504:22:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
487:15:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
470:12:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
449:09:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
427:05:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
408:05:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
360:02:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
325:00:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
308:00:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
295:00:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
274:00:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
249:23:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
200:Differentiating reference text
195:23:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
18:Knowledge:Requests for comment
13:
1:
2926:a detailed reference template
2791:The idea was stolen from the
941:close of this discussion. --
2524:15:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
2421:15:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
1945:14:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
1924:15:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
1092:15:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
1075:15:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
1065:- would facilitate editing.
546:Because it doesn't work. -—
78:04:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
7:
2908:05:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
2891:05:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
2772:Editing with AceWikiEditor.
2404:20:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
2383:03:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
2358:13:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
1907:20:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
1886:03:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
1865:13:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
1058:20:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
1037:03:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
1016:13:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
999:10:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
387:) 22:33, 20 September 2012
156:new user feedback dashboard
95:Questions posed by this RfC
10:
2961:
2702:. Even if the <ref: -->
235:easier to add references.
134:Comments from the proposer
2944:Please do not modify it.
2083:Weak/Conditional Support
332:It would ease editing.--
87:Please do not modify it.
37:This page in a nutshell:
2781:, since it's using the
698:enabled by default. --
215:village pump discussion
2773:
2700:
2771:
2699:
2411:- Don't see why not.
2305:This would be good.
2132:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
1598:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
668:syntax highlighting
458:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
301:syntax highlighting
2774:
2701:
2488:
1430:
247:
88:
2889:
2743:
2674:
2622:
2537:Peter (Southwood)
2477:
2208:
2111:
1749:
1724:
1665:
1566:Peter (Southwood)
1554:
1537:
1455:
1419:
1277:
1242:
1199:
870:
862:
857:
763:
738:
628:
421:Peter (Southwood)
389:
375:comment added by
358:
272:
236:
193:
86:
51:
50:
2952:
2936:
2933:
2927:
2924:
2883:
2879:
2837:
2832:
2737:
2733:
2668:
2664:
2616:
2612:
2486:
2481:
2379:
2373:
2334:per Bruce1ee. •
2230:
2225:
2202:
2198:
2173:Strongly support
2157:
2128:Strongly support
2112:
2109:
1973:
1968:
1963:
1882:
1876:
1768:
1763:
1750:
1746:
1741:
1739:
1718:
1714:
1664:
1662:
1655:
1555:
1552:
1515:
1473:
1470:
1464:per David1217. —
1452:
1446:
1440:
1428:
1423:
1271:
1267:
1236:
1232:
1193:
1189:
1155:
1151:
1145:
1130:
1128:
1123:
1118:
1033:
1027:
946:
896:per nominator. —
864:
860:
855:
782:
777:
764:
760:
755:
753:
732:
728:
712:
707:
702:
666:I've been using
627:
625:
618:
388:
369:
336:
290:
287:
269:
263:
257:
245:
240:
187:
183:
175:see known issues
167:Remember the dot
118:Prior discussion
39:Differentiating
33:
32:
26:
2960:
2959:
2955:
2954:
2953:
2951:
2950:
2949:
2948:
2947:
2940:
2939:
2934:
2930:
2925:
2921:
2916:
2875:
2847:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง
2835:
2830:
2789:
2729:
2711:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง
2660:
2608:
2582:
2532:
2484:
2479:
2472:
2429:
2377:
2371:
2228:
2223:
2194:
2165:
2155:
2149:Support/Comment
2108:
2105:
2079:
2063:
2026:
1971:
1966:
1961:
1953:
1880:
1874:
1766:
1761:
1748:
1744:
1737:
1710:
1693:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง
1658:
1656:
1551:
1548:
1471:
1468:
1450:
1444:
1426:
1421:
1415:
1403:
1398:
1347:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง
1320:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง
1292:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง
1263:
1228:
1185:
1158:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง
1153:
1147:
1141:
1126:
1121:
1116:
1114:
1100:
1031:
1025:
942:
780:
775:
762:
758:
751:
724:
710:
705:
700:
691:, specifically
673:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง
621:
619:
370:
288:
285:
267:
261:
243:
238:
224:
207:more accessible
202:
179:
136:
128:this discussion
120:
97:
91:
82:
81:
80:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2958:
2941:
2938:
2937:
2928:
2918:
2917:
2915:
2912:
2911:
2910:
2894:
2893:
2862:
2861:
2860:
2859:
2858:
2857:
2787:
2766:
2765:
2764:
2763:
2762:
2761:
2722:
2721:
2703:<ref /: -->
2692:
2691:
2690:
2642:
2641:
2640:
2639:
2581:
2580:Implementation
2578:
2577:
2576:
2561:
2560:
2531:
2528:
2527:
2526:
2509:
2499:Stephan Schulz
2492:
2471:
2468:
2467:
2466:
2449:
2428:
2425:
2424:
2423:
2406:
2385:
2360:
2343:
2329:
2317:
2300:
2283:
2264:
2263:
2262:
2261:
2236:
2235:
2212:
2187:
2170:
2163:
2146:
2125:
2116:
2106:
2098:
2078:
2075:
2062:
2059:
2058:
2057:
2041:
2040:
2025:
2022:
2021:
2020:
2002:
2001:
2000:
1999:
1979:
1978:
1952:
1949:
1948:
1947:
1926:
1909:
1888:
1867:
1850:
1833:
1819:
1807:
1790:
1773:
1754:
1742:
1728:
1703:
1686:
1669:
1652:
1629:
1612:
1591:
1574:
1559:
1549:
1541:
1506:
1489:
1480:
1459:
1434:
1414:
1411:
1402:
1399:
1397:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1226:is premature.
1135:
1134:
1099:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1077:
1060:
1039:
1018:
1001:
984:
967:
956:Strong support
953:
944:John Broughton
935:Strong support
932:
915:
903:
891:
874:
839:
822:
804:
787:
768:
756:
742:
717:
683:
661:
644:
632:
615:
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
609:
608:
607:
580:
524:
506:
489:
479:Stephan Schulz
472:
451:
429:
413:
412:
411:
410:
391:
390:
362:
327:
310:
297:
276:
251:
223:
220:
201:
198:
135:
132:
119:
116:
115:
114:
111:
108:
96:
93:
92:
83:
70:Nathan Johnson
67:
66:
63:
60:
55:
54:
53:
52:
49:
48:
34:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2957:
2945:
2932:
2923:
2919:
2909:
2905:
2901:
2896:
2895:
2892:
2887:
2884:(note: not a
2882:
2880:
2878:
2872:
2868:
2864:
2863:
2856:
2852:
2848:
2843:
2842:
2841:
2838:
2833:
2827:
2826:
2825:
2822:
2820:
2815:
2814:
2813:
2812:
2809:
2807:
2803:
2798:
2794:
2786:
2784:
2780:
2779:AceWikiEditor
2770:
2760:
2756:
2752:
2748:
2747:
2746:
2741:
2738:(note: not a
2736:
2734:
2732:
2726:
2725:
2724:
2723:
2720:
2716:
2712:
2708:
2698:
2693:
2689:
2686:
2683:
2679:
2678:
2677:
2672:
2669:(note: not a
2667:
2665:
2663:
2656:
2655:
2654:
2653:
2650:
2647:
2638:
2635:
2632:
2627:
2626:
2625:
2620:
2617:(note: not a
2615:
2613:
2611:
2605:
2601:
2600:
2599:
2598:
2595:
2592:
2586:
2575:
2571:
2567:
2563:
2562:
2559:
2555:
2551:
2547:
2546:
2545:
2544:
2540:
2538:
2525:
2521:
2517:
2513:
2510:
2508:
2504:
2500:
2496:
2493:
2491:
2487:
2482:
2474:
2473:
2465:
2461:
2457:
2453:
2450:
2448:
2444:
2440:
2439:
2434:
2431:
2430:
2422:
2418:
2414:
2410:
2407:
2405:
2401:
2397:
2393:
2392:Anonymouse321
2389:
2386:
2384:
2380:
2374:
2368:
2364:
2361:
2359:
2355:
2351:
2347:
2344:
2342:
2339:
2337:
2333:
2330:
2328:
2325:
2321:
2318:
2316:
2312:
2308:
2304:
2301:
2299:
2295:
2291:
2287:
2284:
2282:
2278:
2274:
2269:
2266:
2265:
2260:
2256:
2252:
2248:
2244:
2240:
2239:
2238:
2237:
2234:
2231:
2226:
2220:
2216:
2213:
2211:
2206:
2203:(note: not a
2201:
2199:
2197:
2191:
2188:
2186:
2182:
2178:
2177:MartinPoulter
2174:
2171:
2169:
2166:
2161:
2159:
2158:
2150:
2147:
2145:
2141:
2137:
2133:
2129:
2126:
2124:
2121:
2117:
2115:
2102:
2099:
2097:
2093:
2089:
2088:Shooterwalker
2084:
2081:
2080:
2074:
2072:
2068:
2056:
2052:
2048:
2043:
2042:
2039:
2036:
2033:
2028:
2027:
2019:
2015:
2011:
2007:
2004:
2003:
1998:
1994:
1990:
1989:
1983:
1982:
1981:
1980:
1977:
1974:
1969:
1964:
1958:
1955:
1954:
1946:
1942:
1938:
1934:
1930:
1927:
1925:
1921:
1917:
1913:
1910:
1908:
1904:
1900:
1896:
1895:Anonymouse321
1892:
1889:
1887:
1883:
1877:
1871:
1868:
1866:
1862:
1858:
1854:
1851:
1849:
1845:
1841:
1837:
1834:
1832:
1829:
1827:
1823:
1820:
1818:
1815:
1811:
1808:
1806:
1802:
1798:
1794:
1791:
1789:
1785:
1781:
1777:
1774:
1772:
1769:
1764:
1758:
1755:
1753:
1747:
1740:
1738:Riley Huntley
1732:
1729:
1727:
1722:
1719:(note: not a
1717:
1715:
1713:
1707:
1704:
1702:
1698:
1694:
1690:
1687:
1685:
1681:
1677:
1676:MartinPoulter
1673:
1670:
1668:
1663:
1661:
1653:
1651:
1647:
1643:
1642:
1637:
1633:
1630:
1628:
1624:
1620:
1616:
1613:
1611:
1607:
1603:
1599:
1595:
1592:
1590:
1586:
1582:
1578:
1575:
1573:
1569:
1567:
1563:
1560:
1558:
1545:
1542:
1540:
1535:
1531:
1527:
1523:
1519:
1514:
1510:
1507:
1505:
1501:
1497:
1496:Shooterwalker
1493:
1490:
1488:
1485:
1481:
1479:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1463:
1460:
1458:
1454:
1453:
1448:
1447:
1438:
1435:
1433:
1429:
1424:
1417:
1416:
1410:
1408:
1407:accessibility
1373:
1369:
1365:
1364:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1352:
1348:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1338:
1335:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1325:
1321:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1311:
1308:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1297:
1293:
1288:
1280:
1275:
1272:(note: not a
1270:
1268:
1266:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1255:
1252:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1240:
1237:(note: not a
1235:
1233:
1231:
1225:
1220:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1211:
1208:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1197:
1194:(note: not a
1192:
1190:
1188:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1176:
1173:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1163:
1159:
1150:
1144:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1133:
1129:
1124:
1119:
1111:
1110:
1105:
1102:
1101:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1078:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1061:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1046:Anonymouse321
1043:
1040:
1038:
1034:
1028:
1022:
1019:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1002:
1000:
996:
992:
991:Colapeninsula
988:
985:
983:
979:
975:
971:
968:
966:
963:
961:
957:
954:
952:
949:
945:
940:
936:
933:
931:
927:
923:
919:
916:
914:
911:
907:
904:
902:
899:
895:
892:
890:
886:
882:
878:
875:
873:
869:
868:
863:
858:
852:
851:
848:
843:
840:
838:
834:
830:
826:
823:
821:
817:
813:
808:
805:
803:
799:
795:
791:
788:
786:
783:
778:
772:
769:
767:
761:
754:
752:Riley Huntley
746:
743:
741:
736:
733:(note: not a
731:
729:
727:
721:
718:
716:
713:
708:
703:
697:
694:
690:
688:
684:
682:
678:
674:
669:
665:
662:
660:
656:
652:
651:MartinPoulter
648:
645:
643:
640:
636:
633:
631:
626:
624:
616:
606:
602:
598:
597:
592:
591:
590:
587:
584:
577:
576:
575:
571:
567:
566:
561:
557:
556:
555:
552:
549:
545:
544:
543:
539:
535:
534:
528:
525:
523:
519:
515:
510:
507:
505:
501:
497:
493:
490:
488:
484:
480:
476:
473:
471:
467:
463:
459:
455:
452:
450:
446:
442:
438:
433:
430:
428:
424:
422:
418:
415:
414:
409:
405:
401:
400:
395:
394:
393:
392:
386:
382:
378:
374:
366:
363:
361:
356:
352:
348:
344:
340:
335:
331:
328:
326:
322:
318:
317:Shooterwalker
314:
311:
309:
306:
302:
298:
296:
293:
292:
291:
280:
277:
275:
271:
270:
265:
264:
255:
252:
250:
246:
241:
234:
230:
226:
225:
219:
216:
212:
208:
197:
196:
191:
188:(note: not a
186:
184:
182:
176:
172:
168:
163:
161:
157:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
131:
129:
125:
112:
109:
105:
104:
99:
98:
90:
79:
75:
71:
64:
61:
58:
57:
46:
45:accessibility
42:
38:
35:
28:
27:
19:
2943:
2931:
2922:
2877:I, Jethrobot
2876:
2865:By the way,
2800:
2796:
2790:
2775:
2731:I, Jethrobot
2730:
2706:
2662:I, Jethrobot
2661:
2643:
2610:I, Jethrobot
2609:
2587:
2583:
2533:
2511:
2494:
2451:
2437:
2432:
2408:
2388:Weak support
2387:
2366:
2362:
2345:
2331:
2319:
2302:
2285:
2267:
2214:
2196:I, Jethrobot
2195:
2189:
2172:
2153:
2148:
2127:
2100:
2082:
2064:
2005:
1987:
1956:
1932:
1928:
1911:
1890:
1869:
1852:
1835:
1821:
1809:
1792:
1775:
1756:
1730:
1712:I, Jethrobot
1711:
1705:
1688:
1671:
1659:
1640:
1631:
1614:
1593:
1576:
1561:
1543:
1513:TonyTheTiger
1508:
1491:
1467:
1466:
1461:
1443:
1441:
1436:
1404:
1361:
1265:I, Jethrobot
1264:
1230:I, Jethrobot
1229:
1218:
1187:I, Jethrobot
1186:
1148:
1142:
1108:
1107:
1103:
1079:
1062:
1041:
1020:
1003:
986:
969:
955:
934:
922:Ottawahitech
917:
905:
893:
876:
865:
849:
846:
841:
824:
806:
789:
770:
744:
726:I, Jethrobot
725:
719:
695:
686:
685:
663:
646:
634:
622:
595:
564:
532:
526:
508:
491:
474:
453:
436:<ref: -->
435:
431:
416:
398:
371:— Preceding
364:
334:TonyTheTiger
329:
312:
284:
283:
278:
260:
258:
253:
232:
229:VisualEditor
211:Barack Obama
203:
181:I, Jethrobot
180:
164:
140:The Teahouse
137:
124:village pump
121:
101:
84:
36:
2935:another one
2802:Danmichaelo
2438:Timeshifter
2247:Why use vi?
1988:Timeshifter
1797:First Light
1735:-- Cheers,
1641:Timeshifter
939:WP:SNOWBALL
881:First Light
829:WhisperToMe
749:-- Cheers,
687:Conditional
617:Of course.
596:Timeshifter
565:Timeshifter
533:Timeshifter
399:Timeshifter
2914:References
2793:CodeEditor
1660:Sandstein
1530:WP:CHICAGO
1117:—JmaJeremy
937:. Suggest
623:Sandstein
351:WP:CHICAGO
103:references
2350:Noleander
2245:not vim.
2241:You mean
2071:infoboxes
2067:Wikilinks
1857:Noleander
1581:bobrayner
1547:default.
1008:Noleander
530:buggy. --
441:bobrayner
41:reference
2900:wctaiwan
2831:Garamond
2819:Jesse V.
2751:Yopienso
2604:bugzilla
2516:GenQuest
2456:Quiddity
2452:Support.
2433:Support.
2400:contribs
2336:Jesse V.
2324:Bruce1ee
2224:Garamond
2156:Floydian
2101:Support.
2047:wctaiwan
1937:GenQuest
1903:contribs
1840:Quiddity
1826:Jesse V.
1814:Bruce1ee
1762:Garamond
1731:Support.
1689:Support.
1672:Support.
1632:Support.
1544:Support.
1445:Activism
1084:GenQuest
1054:contribs
974:Quiddity
960:Jesse V.
898:Bruce1ee
867:Join WER
776:Garamond
639:MuZemike
527:Support.
385:contribs
373:unsigned
365:Support.
262:Activism
2413:Rlendog
2409:Support
2363:Support
2346:Support
2332:Support
2320:Support
2303:Support
2290:Bgwhite
2286:Support
2268:Support
2251:Bgwhite
2215:Support
2190:Support
2010:Kaldari
1929:Support
1916:Rlendog
1912:Support
1891:Support
1870:Support
1853:Support
1836:Support
1822:Support
1810:Support
1793:Support
1776:Support
1757:Support
1706:Support
1619:Carrite
1615:Support
1594:Support
1577:Support
1562:Support
1534:WP:FOUR
1509:Support
1492:Support
1462:Support
1437:Support
1080:Support
1067:Rlendog
1063:Support
1042:Support
1021:Support
1004:Support
987:Support
970:Support
918:Support
906:Support
894:Support
877:Support
842:Support
825:Support
812:Bgwhite
807:Support
790:Support
771:Support
745:Support
720:Support
689:Support
664:Support
647:Support
635:Support
514:Carrite
509:Support
492:Support
475:Support
454:Support
432:Support
417:Support
377:Noetica
355:WP:FOUR
330:Support
313:Support
279:Support
254:Support
169:(found
2682:Isarra
2646:Isarra
2631:Isarra
2591:Isarra
2512:Oppose
2495:Oppose
2110:oetica
2032:Isarra
2006:Oppose
1967:unique
1957:Oppose
1553:oetica
1334:Isarra
1307:Isarra
1251:Isarra
1207:Isarra
1172:Isarra
1149:orange
1104:Oppose
847:Dennis
706:unique
583:Isarra
548:Isarra
496:Kilopi
2836:Lethe
2566:Nageh
2480:David
2372:Pesky
2367:which
2273:kwami
2249:. :)
2243:Emacs
2229:Lethe
2140:track
2120:MER-C
1972:names
1875:Pesky
1780:kwami
1767:Lethe
1606:track
1484:MER-C
1422:David
1368:talk
1156:....
1154:green
1109:Edit:
1026:Pesky
910:Rd232
850:Brown
794:kwami
781:Lethe
711:names
466:track
305:MER-C
239:David
16:<
2904:talk
2851:talk
2806:talk
2755:talk
2715:talk
2570:talk
2554:talk
2550:Gigs
2520:talk
2503:talk
2485:1217
2460:talk
2443:talk
2417:talk
2396:talk
2378:talk
2354:talk
2311:talk
2307:Gigs
2294:talk
2277:talk
2255:talk
2181:talk
2136:talk
2092:talk
2051:talk
2014:talk
1993:talk
1941:talk
1933:beta
1920:talk
1899:talk
1881:talk
1861:talk
1844:talk
1801:talk
1784:talk
1745:talk
1697:talk
1680:talk
1646:talk
1638:. --
1623:talk
1602:talk
1585:talk
1500:talk
1451:1234
1427:1217
1351:talk
1324:talk
1296:talk
1162:talk
1088:talk
1071:talk
1050:talk
1032:talk
1012:talk
995:talk
978:talk
948:(♫♫)
926:talk
885:talk
833:talk
816:talk
798:talk
759:talk
677:talk
655:talk
601:talk
570:talk
538:talk
518:talk
500:talk
483:talk
462:talk
445:talk
404:talk
381:talk
321:talk
268:1234
244:1217
233:much
171:here
126:per
74:talk
2886:bot
2783:Ace
2740:bot
2707:all
2671:bot
2619:bot
2219:vim
2205:bot
1721:bot
1526:BIO
1469:Cup
1363:DGG
1274:bot
1239:bot
1219:any
1196:bot
1146:,
1143:red
735:bot
696:not
693:iff
347:BIO
286:Cup
190:bot
162:.
2906:)
2888:!)
2853:)
2757:)
2742:!)
2717:)
2673:!)
2621:!)
2572:)
2556:)
2541::
2522:)
2505:)
2462:)
2445:)
2419:)
2402:)
2398:•
2381:)
2356:)
2313:)
2296:)
2279:)
2257:)
2207:!)
2183:)
2142:)
2094:)
2069:,
2053:)
2016:)
1995:)
1962:No
1943:)
1922:)
1905:)
1901:•
1884:)
1863:)
1846:)
1803:)
1786:)
1733:-
1723:!)
1699:)
1682:)
1648:)
1625:)
1608:)
1587:)
1570::
1536:)
1502:)
1472:co
1370:)
1353:)
1326:)
1298:)
1276:!)
1241:!)
1198:!)
1164:)
1152:,
1090:)
1073:)
1056:)
1052:•
1035:)
1014:)
997:)
980:)
928:)
887:)
856:2¢
853:-
835:)
818:)
800:)
792:—
747:-
737:!)
701:No
679:)
657:)
603:)
572:)
540:)
520:)
502:)
485:)
468:)
447:)
425::
406:)
383:•
357:)
323:)
303:.
289:co
192:!)
151:,
76:)
2902:(
2849:(
2808:)
2804:(
2753:(
2713:(
2685:༆
2649:༆
2634:༆
2594:༆
2568:(
2552:(
2518:(
2501:(
2458:(
2441:(
2415:(
2394:(
2375:(
2352:(
2309:(
2292:(
2275:(
2253:(
2179:(
2164:¢
2138:•
2134:(
2107:N
2090:(
2049:(
2035:༆
2012:(
1991:(
1939:(
1918:(
1897:(
1878:(
1859:(
1842:(
1812:—
1799:(
1782:(
1695:(
1678:(
1644:(
1621:(
1604:•
1600:(
1583:(
1550:N
1532:/
1528:/
1524:/
1522:C
1520:/
1518:T
1516:(
1498:(
1366:(
1349:(
1337:༆
1322:(
1310:༆
1294:(
1254:༆
1210:༆
1175:༆
1160:(
1127:✎
1122:✆
1086:(
1069:(
1048:(
1029:(
1010:(
993:(
976:(
924:(
883:(
861:©
831:(
814:(
796:(
675:(
653:(
599:(
586:༆
568:(
551:༆
536:(
516:(
498:(
481:(
464:•
460:(
443:(
402:(
379:(
353:/
349:/
345:/
343:C
341:/
339:T
337:(
319:(
148:,
145:,
72:(
68:-
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.