The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Wiki#Visual editing. Daniel (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Document mode[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not very popular term. I think it should redirect to WYSIWIG. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tough one. The main place I've heard it was indeed in the context of Wikis way back when, so we could target Wiki § Characteristics (and some might even be merged there) And, if it's mentioned in such depth on c2/WikiWikiWeb and MeatballWiki, it's almost certainly a concept important to wikis. I've never heard it formally used to describe WYSIWIG editing but it's not too far of a stretch. It's also term in Internet Explorer, but that's probably not a great redirect. I'm not sure if dab is appropriate here. —siro χ o 03:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Electronic document. As far as I can discover, this term is a neologism invented by the creators of the first wikis, but it failed to catch on. Therefore, it should be deleted as lacking lasting notability. But from what I understand the concept isn't fully congruent with WYSIWIG. One could have a wiki that isn't WYSIWIG and still is constructed so the "current version of the page is a coherent and self-contained whole, reflecting only the result of the last update". ― novov (t c) 05:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two separate Redirect target articles suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the wiki characteristics is fine. The article is about wiki software; to me the term means seeing how a document would look printed out from a word processor, back from the days when the program looked one way and you had to "print preview" to see the actual fonts being used and how the layout was. That is now the standard way of using word processors (WYSIWYG) but the discussion here is around wiki software. Oaktree b (talk) 02:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wiki#Visual_editing: I believe this is the specific subsection of Characteristics that relates to this feature. Owen× ☎ 22:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.