Talk:Markdown/Archive 1

Why is `monospace` repeated?
Isn't it a mistake that `monospace` is repeated in the following?

Text attributes *italic*, **bold**, `monospace`,monospace, `monospace`.

Ronbarak (talk) 14:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for spotting this error. I've corrected the text attributes example. --Mark viking (talk) 06:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Untitled
I've done a little bit of cleaning-up; here's the rundown: Thank you.
 * Cut out the list of languages Markdown has been implemented in, since it was getting rather long.
 * 212.179.125.196 (talk) 13:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC) I think this is incorrect to remove this list, it was very useful. Using this list I had discovered C implementation of markdown that I really needed. Please, return it back.
 * I second that. Removing a list because it was "rather long" is somewhat extraordinary; this was a valuable resource. Overall this article is now far less useful as a reference resource, whereas previously it had been one of the best available. Many useful examples have been removed. Please restore the excised content to recreate a genuinely useful, encyclopedic entry on a syntax which has expanded beyond the original Daring Fireball specification. ThomasNichols (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I did sort it on programming language and moved the editor links to a separate paragraph, with implementations more than two times in the same programming language it has its own subparagraph now. Also I added some new implementations Wafelijzer (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Gathered together all the implementations other than the original into the "additional implementations" section, alphabetized by implementation language.
 * May I ask what has now become of this section? ThomasNichols (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Added a new section on packages which provide extensions or extension mechanisms for Markdown.
 * Cleaned up redundant bits of text (mostly things which duplicated the domain name of an external URL in a note after the link).

The section on packages which extend Markdown could probably use some work, because I'm sure there are more out there, I just don't know about them off the top of my head. Ubernostrum 05:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the example for Syntax example for line breaks is wrong, as it states "two spaces" where there is only one "space" (underscore) visible in the example, but I don't know, since I don't use markdown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.240.1.96 (talk) 06:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

References asked
Now someone put a reference request on top - but what kind of references should be named here - from the scientific community? I'm afraid for these kind of articles we have to cope with the fact that we won't find this kind of reference - and still want the article in WP. --Edoe (talk) 12:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. Markdown support is now implemented in at least 13 languages (as per this wiki entry) -- many of them open source implementations. What is required by way of a reference? Markdown will not warrant an article in a peer-reviewed publication (it's been around since 2004 and is no longer newsworthy); does it need a commercial implementation before it is is considered suitably "referenced"? Many commercial tools include Markdown support - have we reached a point where a well-supported open source package is not considered a suitable reference, but a commercial package is sufficient?

ThomasNichols (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Variants
Certain unofficial extensions to the language, such as those included in PHP Markdown Extra, have become quite popular. Ideally, this article should list some of the more common ones, with examples, and which implementations support it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.130.167 (talk) 04:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

72.222.130.167 (talk) 04:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Markdown Users
ll A list of Markdown Editors based on Platform (Windows/Mac/Browser-based) with the various.md flavors they support. http://andybrandt531.com/2015/03/markdown-for-bloggers-part-6-monster-list-of-markdown-tools/ http://www.sitepoint.com/best-markdown-editors-windows/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_documentation_generators http://mashable.com/2013/06/24/markdown-tools/ 143.112.144.129 (talk) 22:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)ok

On 17:57, 26 March 2011, Superp removed from this section the "Pro Git" book example I had added (complete with references). The person removing it claimed that it was not notable. I disagree that it is not notable, since it is a unique example that demonstrates that complete book-scale publications can be written using Markdown. I will not undo the deletion, but I believe it was worthwhile. 72.196.213.21 (talk) 02:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

PivotalTracker uses full Markdown when you write your project's description for the overview, and they use a lightweight version of Markdown for the text you write in the stories. Lightweight meaning single underscore equals italics, single asterisk equals bold. Headers, lists, images, etc aren't recognized.

http://pivotaltracker.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.22.251.193 (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Redsteakraw added DIASPORA* to the section and arranged the users in Alphabetical order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redsteakraw (talk • contribs) 18:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Showoff redirects to Showoff (band). This is probably not intended. --84.60.255.230 (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Link-farm
Most of the links above the "External links" sections are not linked to Wikipedia topic. Rather, they are linked to external websites for programs whose notability has not been addressed. They are not "references" either, since there is no WP:RS which provides this list. TEDickey (talk) 11:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree and am removing these lists. If anyone feels a specific piece of software is notable enough to validate being mentioned, make a wikipage for it and link to it. (Narkstraws (talk) 05:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC))

Manual as "Syntax Examples"
Again, there is no WP:RS other than the primary source for this section. It consists of detailed examples, and its only purpose is as a manual for markdown TEDickey (talk) 11:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Use of primary sources
At the moment, there are three footnotes. The first is a review, more or less (actually the latter, since the given source is someone's blog rather than by a knowledgeable review). The other two just happen to mention markdown in passing; they are discussing something else. The other links (see the link farm discussion) are all primary sources. TEDickey (talk) 11:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. I removed them. (Narkstraws (talk) 05:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC))

Removed link spam and warnings
I have removed the many links to external sources and as such have also removed the warnings about them. If you wish to add one of these links back in because you feel the source is notable enough (doubtful given that markdown's notability itself was questioned not too long ago), I recommend making a wikipedia page for this software. Then link to that wikipedia page. Note I am not encouraging people to spam Wikipedia with non-notable software, I am simply relying on Wikipedia's ability to regulate pages to keep this page spam free. In addition if you feel like adding a link, please be honest about your relationship to the site you are linking to and why you think it merits inclusion. (Narkstraws (talk) 05:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC))
 * I should mention that the use of BBEdit in the article is a great example of how this should be done. (Narkstraws (talk) 05:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC))
 * I just create a page which is borrowed from List of real-time operating systems and Comparison of file archivers specially for Markdown implementations (see: List of Markdown implementations). This keeps the Markdown page clean and satisfies the users which want to know more about available implementations. This is the same guideline for RTOS and is also not polluted with link spam but has a seperate list for available software Wafelijzer (talk) 09:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

History
When was Markdown first introduced? --Abdull (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Good question! That would be interesting to establish. The mailing list dates back to at least 2006 (http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/markdown-discuss/2006-April/thread.html), the wayback machine gives us 2003 however: http://web.archive.org/web/20040407164207/http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/markdown-discuss/ - where it seems the language was in development. The latest markdown release is 1.0.1 and was released on 17 dec 2004. The license also dates back to 2004. The wayback machine goes all the way to march 2004, where the page indicates 1.0b4: http://web.archive.org/web/20040402182332/http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/ . The wayback machine finds the first hit on daringfireball.net in 2002, and on the april post, it is mentionned that the software is in use since november 2003, so I guess that's your answer! I'll just throw that in the page. :) TheAnarcat (talk) 01:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * well, seems like i wasted a little time with that research, the information you were looking for was already in the article! i made some clarifications however, as to the exact date. it may be interesting to make a specific "history" section, especially when the standards get underway... but we'll see. TheAnarcat (talk) 01:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * However, at least some of the conventions used in markdown are much older than the program(s) discussed in this topic. None of that is reflected in the sources for the topic, it is written as though it was a completely original thing (I'm thinking of the sections on emphasized text, and horizontal rules which are at least ten years older than the 2004 date which you mention). TEDickey (talk) 08:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Got a source for that? :) TheAnarcat (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps (it was a convention which I've used in development that long, since it was explained to me in that era). Examples are easy to find.  A quote-unquote source giving the origin would be hard.  Depends on what you're trying to prove. TEDickey (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Including As-Is Philiosophy
I've been using Markdown for years - today I discovered the "as-is" philosophy of the syntax while reading about PanDoc (http://johnmacfarlane.net/pandoc/demo/example9/pandocs-markdown.html)

I think this is a very useful piece of information for understanding the intent of Markdown. I checked to see if the "as-is" philosophy is mentioned here. Since it wasn't mentioned here, I thought it would improve the article to add a brief mention of it, with a link to the source by John Gruber. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elseanyo (talk • contribs) 13:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

"Manual"
I prefered the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Markdown&oldid=576863442 version with the "manual"] since the language's syntax seems to be its best description to me. However, the "manual" may be shortened. Perhaps a compromise between the old and the current version (e. g. a table like in the German version) could be the best? Best, --Marsupium (talk) 10:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by creator John Gruber
The source given does not agree with the use made of it here, as any reader can verify TEDickey (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Merge Extensions page
I don't see why the stub on extensions isn't just a section in here (the main article) which only has a bullet list on the topic of extensions in the see also section. 188.27.81.64 (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ — Christoph Päper 15:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Github flavored markdown, Dubious "Task List"
No where on the github markdown page that is cited does the "Task List" syntax exist. Further more I cannot seem to find any project on github that has task lists in their readme's. I vote for removing the "Task lists" from added syntax in the git section. Primis (talk) 05:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I added a reference verifying task lists in GFM. --Mark viking (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

"Linkfarm"
I removed a tag from the "Implementations" section, as every entry in the list there is for the markdown implementation in some notable OS, scripting language, library, editor, or other thing about which we have an actual article. I also removed the incorrect tag, which is for WP:EL-violating use of inline external links like this one, in article prose, or the inclusion of things in the "External links" section that do not belong there (or belong in the article at all, per WP:SPAM). PS: See WP:OVERTAG and consider how ironic it is to unnecessarily tag a section with what amounts to a list of redundant cleanup templates, including with a tag that doesn't belong there, when one's complaint is about a list of things the relevance one disputes. It's remarkably like complaining repetitively in a really whiny voice about how often your co-worker whines. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

link farm items


Markdown implementations

 * The sourcecode documentation generator Doxygen supports Markdown with extra features.
 * RStudio, an IDE for R provides a C++ wrapper function for a markdown variant called sundown.
 * IntelliJ IDEA, an IDE for Java, provides a Markdown plugin
 * MultiMarkdown, a format and program with more syntax features and export options than traditional Markdown
 * PageDown, a parser for StackExchange's Markdown syntax, written in JavaScript, based on Showdown by John Fraser
 * GitHub Flavored Markdown (GFM) treats newlines in paragraph-like content as real line breaks, ignores underscores in words, and adds syntax highlighting, task lists, and tables. It has several implementations:
 * "Grip - GitHub Readme Instant Preview" (Joe Esposito) - Python
 * "Vim-Flavored-Markdown" (Jeff Tratner) - Vim scripting
 * "GitHub-Flavored Markdown Comments" (Evan Solomon) - PHP WordPress plugin
 * "Markdown on Save" (Mark Jaquith) - PHP WordPress plugin
 * "Node-GFM" (Gabriel Llamas) - JavaScript
 * "Parsedown" (Emanuil Rusev) - PHP
 * Pandoc adds tables, line blocks, definition lists, superscripts and subscripts, can generate table of contents.
 * Discount - a C implementation.
 * Md2doc - a XSLT 2.0 implementation.
 * Visual Studio Web Essentials - an extension library for Microsoft Visual Studio with live markdown preview
 * Markdown editing and live preview in Linux with a python module
 * MarkAPL is a converter written in Dyalog APL. It supports fenced blocks, smart typography, link references, special attributes and can generate a table of contents.
 * PHP Markdown - a library package that includes the PHP Markdown parser and its sibling PHP Markdown Extra with additional features.

An editor asserted that "Rm. "example farm" tag; everything in this list is notable.", without appearing to notice that (a) half of the entries lack a Wikipedia topic, (b) notability is not demonstrated by a link pointing to the respective developer's websites. By the way, the comment about "whiny" is hostile as well. TEDickey (talk) 23:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Notability is not required to appear in a list. To define a criterion for the list of implementations, I'd go with including a) implementations that have been described by a reliable source, or b) implementations that are part of software that has a Wikipedia article. This should limit the list to only significant implementations. We'd have to review the current list to check if there are references in RSs for those without a link to an article. Diego (talk) 10:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * , could you please discuss the possibility to define an inclusion criteria for the list of implementations, before removing a whole section's content? Diego (talk) 12:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I just agreed with who added links to external lists of implementations. If such exist and are maintained I see no point in repeating that futile effort here. As far as I know Wikipedia doesn’t do the same for other general purpose formats like JSON, HTML or PNG. If such articles include implementation info it’s usually as part of other useful content and there are WP articles for the respective software products. — Christoph Päper 13:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You've not looked properly at those articles. JSON has JSON, which is a list of significant implementations without "part of other useful content", it's just a link of links and references like the one we had here. And HTML and PNG contain links to Comparison of HTML parsers and Comparison of raster graphics editors, which again are lists of links with references, not articles that explain the implementations in prose. Diego (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm preserving here the disputed content for readers wishing to check the content. Diego (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Dear Diego,

Thank you for preserving the table that I had created initially. My intention was to create this table to have a list of (notable) open-source editors. My question is, does open-source create notability? orschiro (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * No, coverage by multiple independent third party sources create notability. However, article content doesn't need to be notable; WP:Notability is a test for the existence of a whole article as an independent topic. For each part of the article, it's enough that content is verifiable and relevant to the topic. A common criterion for including lists of content in articles is that they are described by one or two independent sources (a lower threshold than full notability). For lists, it is also usually required that an objective inclusion criterion is defined, so that entries not satisfying it are excluded from the article.
 * In the cases I've seen, reliable sources for open source software don't always need to be commercial magazines and newspapers; coverage by high-profile groups promoting open source are considered reliable for factual statements about open source software. Diego (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Clear, thanks! Thus, in order to proceed with including the table, we need to find coverage of these softwares on mainstream online media platforms? orschiro (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly! And it's best if those platforms have a review process for their content; mere repositories or listings of software specifications won't do. Read WP:Reliable sources for details. Diego (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * My objection is not so much notability or verifiability, but WP:NPOV and perhaps WP:SPAM. There’s no valid reason to limit the list of editors to ones with a FOSS license (which would need to be discriminated further, btw.). Markdown is implemented in so many software products either natively, through standard libraries or with optional plugins that it’s impossible to cover them all in an equal and fair way. What can make a certain implementation notable is if it introduced a syntax extension that has proven to be popular, which can seen e.g. by others copying it or trying to be compatible with it (e.g. Multi Markdown, Markdown Extra, Github Flavored Markdown, Commonmark). — Christoph Päper 07:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I concur, we can use that as the criterion for items in the list. My comment was not intended to exclude proprietary software, only to point out that the requirements for reliable sources for FLOSS may differ from those of traditional media, which was the question started by orschiro. In the case of libraries, it would make sense to include the library itself rather than the programms which use it. Diego (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please delete with extreme prejudice, it's attracting spam. Notable products (= have undeleted Wikipedia articles for more than one hour not tagged as AFD/PROD) using markdown are of course very interesting and relevant, an ordinary == See also == could handle this. 2A03:2267:0:0:1ED:F1EB:8BC1:AA29 (talk) 07:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * All tags resolved: non-notable or unreferenced items removed (can be of course added again with a reference remotely passing WP:42), good "discount" got another reference, and registered variant GFM should be okay per RFC 7764 and several existing references; maybe move it up to the first occurence of GFM. I really love . 2A03:2267:0:0:61D1:85E9:7F80:C520 (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Merge Markdown Extra
Markdown Extra is a very short article; it could be added below CommonMark. One PHP Markdown reference could go to this merged section. 2A03:2267:0:0:7884:1732:BF45:81CD (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. This looks like a very reasonable idea given that the information about this extension is quite short.  Best wishes.  RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 12:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

MOS template removed. Was improperly and unfairly applied.
The MOS template refers to a rule which has an explicit exception for the usage of code in this article: to show succinct examples of a coding language. The examples of this section can in no way be described as complete algorithms. Therefore the MOS template was applied in error. I removed it. Before considering reverting my change, please read the relevant rule and its exceptions very carefully. Dlw20070716 (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

File extension .mkd
The ReText editor uses  as its file extension by default and will also look for ,  ,  ,  , and. Perhaps, at a minimum,  could be added to the infobox? Or is this not standard enough to warrant a mention there? Best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Syntax table needs development
The table showing the syntax could be improved, by adding:


 * rows for each type of markup (currently it is just three long uninterrupted columns)
 * information on code blocks (to create, simply indent every line of the block by at least 4 spaces or 1 tab)
 * the backslash escapes for \ ` * _ {} [] # + - . !

I am too focused on writing at the moment to make the changes. But someone else might like to? Best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 12:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Markdown. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040402182332/http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/ to http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040402182332/http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/ to http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Markdown in marketing
In marketing, a markdown is a price reduction on a collection of products, usually from past fashion seasons. Should we just create the article Markdown (marketing)? --Qwacker (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We already have Price markdown as a stub. I've created a redirect from your link to that article, and added a hatnote at this article for disambiguation. Diego (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Good stuff, thanks ! --Qwacker (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Markdown as having a clearly defined syntax
User:Ajguyot provided two edits making quite radical changes to the Standardization section. While I think the previous version of the section had issues and the edits made some improvements, I think the fact that Markdown parsing is defined only by the behaviour of a not terribly clean piece of Perl code together with the issues that the CommonMark team identified show that Markdown does not have a clearly defined syntax. Thoughts and edits welcome before I find time to rework this section. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it would be good to encourage to discuss such changes first with other interested editors here on the talkpage. Eric talk 19:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

MultiMarkdown section required
A section on MultiMarkdown could be added? Or at least a sentence in the introduction on this variant? With best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 11:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC)