jk I'm not suggesting we change how the navbar looks on small screens. I'm saying I like how it looks on small screens and think it should look that way on bigger screens too.

Basically the reverse/opposite of what you think I'm saying

Ah I already tested that, but it doesn't look that good, cause you need a dark background for that I wasn't able to produce a nice one in a short timespan.
So a new darker background/colorscheme would be good (even when keeping the menu as is).

The real question is surely 'what does the output look like' because if it results in garbage, nightmare-to-maintain, markup then its imo a waste of time, no matter how pretty the output to the reader.

look at my profile. http://test.springrts.com/wiki/User:Smoth

I did some random blundering on it last night.

Why don't you test it before jumping to the conclusion that it would output garbage?

when indenting text with the rtf editor thing, it only indents in the editor textfield. on preview or saving the text is just normal.

PHPBB is well known already for having apalling markup

So true. It's such a pain to work with.

things can always be better, sometime things are good enough. I will enjoy years from now when you are forced to make that concession.

I get tired of hearing people talk. This is an example of what happens when you put wsiwyg in the hands of a wikinub such as myself. I did everything (including installing this) within about 9 hours.

Uses ckedit, same as spring site proposed wiki editor. Please create an account and look at the wiki syntax via the default editor. It is flawless.

HTTP://WWW.wiki.evolutionrts.info

Not really what I was getting at - a WYSIWYG editor can never produce quality -wiki- markup that meets community conventions, correct use of custom templates etc. Poorly worded before and not explicit about wiki markup vs html, I apologise.

It can if you specify a strict subset of the available markup and make sure it never interferes with anything outside of that subset. The problem with WYSIWYG editors is that they give too much power, especially where styling is concerned. You know how people make headings in Word Docs by turning them into headings, but some people select text and make it bigger and bold?

Once again, I point at the evo site wiki. All done with wsiwyg, and all correct in standards wiki syntax.

Also, af, stop talking please.

Revert exists for a reason. Flozi, I appreciate that you are scared of someone coming in and ruining your hard work, but why don't you stop being afraid for a moment and understand that all people need is guidance and example? The reason the wiki is so fucked up is because there were never any guidelines for people to follow so people just did whatever the hell they chose to do.

If you just set up some guidelines and more importantly, have pages that follow them!, then people will naturally follow those guidelines. Another thing fucking up the works is the fact that the wiki is shoehorned into the site, with cruddy, hacky css markup to make the whole thing work. People would respond differently if the wiki were using the default look. They would naturally try to make it resemble wikipedia, because that is what they know (and that's exactly what I did on the evo wiki). The result is standards reached.

The idea that people are all of a sudden going to start using nothing but inline styles all over the place is stupid. Most people (despite common belief), aren't abject morons. Additionally, you can speak to them and guide them through how to do documentation. Also, this is why guidelines exist.

You guys are creating an actual problem from one that only exists min your heads. Moreover, explain to me why jk went through the wiki and inline styled all over the place. He certainly didn't use a wsiwyg to do it.

Your argument just landed flat on it's face.

Edit: Hmm, none of you even bothered to look at the dokuwiki editor to see is the syntax was standards compliant (userlist doesn't lie ), let me save you some trouble: http://pastebin.com/rB7mSiyP << all done with wsiwyg. I did not flip over to sauce once. (BTW, <note> is a plugin that adds wikipedia style colored alert thingies, just so you know, and it's actually covered here: http://www.wiki.evolutionrts.info/doku. ... ion_syntax )

It does at least use <span> rather than <font> and correctly uses mediawiki syntax for bold/italics et al. Which answers my original question, though not my follow up concern (templates - but you are quite right that a style/ettiquette guide is needed, knorke has made some steps towards that recently)

yeah that is probably good. Honestly any new content probably needs to be screened and run through. that way we can keep things clean. Been cleaning a few sections from time to time, they had NO issue creating horrible pages in media wiki already.

Well flozi, i think you might be missing the fact that modded wysiwyg editors (like ckedit) can actually do wysiwyg based off of wiki syntax source, not just html. You keep approaching it as tho the visual is only seen as a result of html markup in the wiki content itself.

Lol Wikipedia is in the process to switching to a WYSIWYG editor.

I think you failed to either read or understand my last post.

ok so we can has or not?

Yar, I misunderstood what you were saying.