Revision as of 18:39, 18 August 2009 edit Quiddity (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 40,812 edits m Reverted edits by 59.167.65.87 (talk) to last version by ZabMilenko ← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:34, 19 August 2009 edit undo SMcCandlish (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors 203,717 edits The fact that some browsers render <cite> as italic does not mean it is a substitute for <i>! WP guidelines should not recommend outright abuse of [X]HTML markup. Next edit →
Line 31: <nowiki>; term : definition</nowiki> Some other markups are available but risky. Examples are <tt>teletype</tt> (edited as <tt><tt>teletype</tt></tt>), <u>underline</u> (edited as <tt><u>underline</u></tt>), and ''italic'' (edited as <tt><i>italic</i~~></tt> or <tt><cite>italic</cite~~></tt>). But the teletype (monospace) tag does not usually produce text sufficiently different from the standard Wikipedia font to be useful; the underline tag can create confusion with links; and the HTML tags <i> and <cite> are not differentiated by most common browsers. The Wikipedia italic, described above and edited as <tt><nowiki>''</nowiki>italic<nowiki>''</nowiki></tt>, is preferable to the HTML ~~tags~~tag <i~~> and <cite~~>. The markup "double-quoted" (edited as <tt>"double-quoted"</tt>) is not risky, but see the [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style]], subsection '''Punctuation''' for use of quotation marks.

Wikipedia:Technical terms and definitions: Difference between revisions