Help talk:Cheatsheet

MediaWiki link

MediaWiki has great in-detail Formatting cheat-sheet. It shows, for example, complex examples of how to use mixed list patterns in a right way, while also warns of problems that can occcure if you using something, or using something wrong. This Cheat Sheet was really great help for me, to understand how to do more complex things right, and to take a notice on additional features. Now I know where to look if something.

It seems like a good idea to add:

If more in-depth Cheatsheet needed, with more complex examples, see MW:Help:Formatting, but remember about ArchWiki Formatting Style.

If more in-depth Cheatsheet needed, with more complex examples, see MW:Help:Formatting, but remember ArchWiki Formatting Style has higher priority.

If more in-depth Cheatsheet needed, with more complex examples, see MW:Help:Formatting, but remember, it is only here for you to reference. Сomply to ArchWiki Formatting Style.

It can be a note, tip, or just a line.

I think below table it is going to disappear beyond details. Second line seems like the place.

But to be safe and go evolutionary - below table is also good. - PiroXiline (talk) 09:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's keep it simple, this page is only a cheatsheet, and Help:Editing already links to mw:Help:Contents, closed. — Kynikos (talk) 10:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

All do respect.

KISS is:

1. User thinks how to do more advanced mixture of mediawiki symbols, let it be list.
2. Becouse user knows cheat-sheet is a fast way to look and info is dense. He goes to cheat-sheet to find an explanation there.
3. Than user looks everywhere around cheat-sheet and find a link to advanced cheat-sheet MW:Help:Formatting.

3 stages.

Please understand, ArchWiki users are not webpage crawlers. Doesn't go through all the context of the page from top to bottom and then gathering all external links and reading through them. And does not know ArchWiki and it structure and article concepts as you do. Like I am contributing for weeks now, and still doesn't know real concept difference between articles Help:Editing and Help:Style, Help:Editing for me is more brief reference, Help:Style is extensive to detail.

Direct links for users is always better than some overall elaborate structure. They are also simpler, less to read, know, faster to navigate and find answer information.

Lets compare my method to method you state is simpler now as people really search information:

1. User thinks how to do more advanced mixture of mediawiki symbols, let it be list.
2. Becouse user knows cheat-sheet is a fast way to look, many things is covered there and info is dense. He goes to cheat-sheet to find an explanation there.
3. Than user looks everywhere around cheat-sheet and didn't find any answer.
4. User decides to look at Help:Editing, or maybe Help:Style?(where is mw:Help:Contents not present) Or maybe google that thing. We don't know really where he goes. -> Stub We doesn't know where he went.
5. If user appears on Help:Editing.
6. He starts to look at Contents. Question that interests him. Help:Editing#Lists.
7. He finds nothing more than cheat-sheet give him before here.
8. He didn't find info here, so he looks also at Help:Style, maybe it is there. And there is completely nothing about lists.
9. He searches Help:Style and Help:Editing by a word "list" in his browser.
10. He looks through every word appearance on that pages. Nothing referencing his question.
11. Maybe there is some page on ArchWiki, so he can correspond to style. He searches ArchWiki by the word "lists", "list". Not very impressive results.
12. So he is stuck now on Help:Style page. He looked both at Help:Editing and Help:Style and found nothing.
13. Logically he goes googling. "archwiki lists", "archwiki list", "wiki list""-> Stub Help:List - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia found. So he apply to what shown there to Archwiki.
14. Maybe he reads through Help:Style page first, because it is more extensive and last opened. Finds nothing on lists.
15. Than he reads through Help:Editing from the top.
16. He decides to go to external link mw:Help:Contents and read through it, deciding where he should look.
17. And there he finds -> Stub MW:Help:Lists

So user have only 17 stages to go through before he can't find advanced cheat-sheet anyway (by deciding to look really under MW:Help:Formatting). And finding an advanced cheat-sheet there.

So he really can't find cheat-sheet by your method. Only from googling. And going through MediaWiki pages. When he finds information and understands ArchWiki is completely follows and based on MediaWiki engine.

All do respect.

KISS is to reference advanced MW cheat-sheet from this cheat-sheet.

Small link, huge gain.

Anyway you point and I point, and user looks eventually to Wikipedia or MediaWiki by himself. So why not direct him in right direction.

It was very logical for me to add this link, I wanted to make change myself. But thought it is better to have a green light talk before adding it to major page like cheat-sheet.

It just shortens for all other people extensive search for a great source of wiki editing information. I somehow found that cheat-sheet and was wondered by how hidden it was, and wanted to share it in a proper place. -- PiroXiline (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

PiroXiline, this is only one link we're talking about, there's no need to write essays to support your position ;) Your effort deserves reopening this thread of course, let's wait for a third opinion then.

You give the example of complex lists, but there are many "advanced mixture of mediawiki symbols" that the user can use or encounter in an article, some of them are even rendered in unexpected ways, some of which are even actual bugs, and so on, but what I'm saying is that we can't link everything from here. There's a link to Help:Editing, that's the page that should point the readers to more in-depth manuals, not this cheatsheet, IMHO, but let's wait for somebody else, ok.

— Kynikos (talk) 12:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your generosity. The 'some of which are even actual bugs' is a massive point. But, so what if it "officially" presented as a feature ;). Also that page going to be maintained and evolving with MediaWiki engine. And that can be a double-edge sword if ArchWiki engine going to stay too behind.

-- PiroXiline (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

That's the point that even the MediaWiki developers tried to address, see User_talk:Kynikos#MediaWiki_and_help_pages_centralization. I still don't like it much, IMO it would be better if editors were referenced to our pages first. Similarly, pages like Help:Editing might reserve the overview for internal links and a see also section for external links. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 08:37, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Sad that advanced MediaWiki editing don't offloaded to them for more info.

People not stupid here and intuitively understand anyway that that is overall information and not everything apply and foot to use on ArchWiki.

That is why I wrote a remark in body text, that ArchWiki style, rules and features prevail.

They, on MW, also make a remarks on support on support.

Anyway I think, if you allow to reference MW more, we don't brake an ArchWiki engine. It is only text situations. Link is very handy, but you also have a point.

But you know. By choosing to build a wall from MW wiki, now you also take a work to maintain huge pool of MediaWiki editing info on ArchWiki on your shoulders.

We can simply also make improvements to their documentation, by adding remarks and notes.

Maybe more closely migrate to their good ideas also.

In the end. You have more experience.

I going to propose, at least, this link to see also section somewhere.

Than, as mentioned above, on Help:Editing is a logical ppace.

But again, that page is more popular and known, then more hidden cheat-sheet.

So again, thought leads here, but in See also section.

Which I already teoreticly made, remarking everything by text.

I going to longly meditate on that.

I am in perplexity.

-- PiroXiline (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with @Kynikos:

this page is only a cheatsheet, and Help:Editing already links to mw:Help:Contents

I agree with @Lahwaacz:

it would be better if editors were referenced to our pages first

My 2 cents. I take this page as kind of "short notes for beginners". Help#Editing and Help#Style are quite big documents, and for easy questions like "how to mention a package?", "how to add a list?", "how to make bold text?", etc. this page is ideal for newcomers. Then a neophyte contributor starts to read Help Editing/Style carefully. And only after then, when they become much more skilled, they might be interested in more complicated MediaWiki stuff.

So, I'm closing this topic as discussed (nine years later, I know:D).

— Andrei Korshikov (talk) 13:29, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Remove "Signature" line

As for me, "Sign your contributions when posting to a Talk page." advice is useless, because it is done automatically with DiscussionTools. It is needed if talk page wikitext is edited manually, but it is very special case.

I.e. in my opinion the "Signature" line adds more confusion then profit. Cheat sheet is about the most useful stuff, isn't it?

-- Andrei Korshikov (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I had to use Template:Unsigned just yesterday, so I'm not sure. — andreymal (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Can you explain how people make unsigned comments in 2025? O_O I mean, "Reply" button always add a signature…

If they just press "Edit source"… and don't see the {{Note|…remember to sign your posts…}}… then cheat sheet will not help them anyway:(

-- Andrei Korshikov (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

We can remove it IMO, the note you mentioned links to Help:Discussion which should include everything. — Lahwaacz (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I removed it. Closing.— Andrei Korshikov (talk) 10:52, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

What are use cases for Underlining?

Help:Style/Formatting and punctuation#General rules reads clearly:

> "Do not use different highlighting methods from the ones defined in this manual; this includes, but is not limited to, … underlining …".

I see only one valid use case: underlined console output imitation—IBus#Tips and tricks.

Color output in console#rxvt-unicode, as for me, is a bad sample.

And three other occurrences are obviously wrong:

• MEncoder#Basics
• Mozc#Confirming Mozc version which you are using now
• OpenLDAP#Configure slapd for SSL

My current opinion: this page is a list of common commands. Underline is extremely special and should be removed from the table.

— Andrei Korshikov (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I think Underlining was placed here because of Talk pages, but we have Visual Editor now) — Andrei Korshikov (talk) 11:15, 16 August 2025 (UTC)