What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 133 Stack Exchange communities.

I wanted to add the following comment to this answer:

Yep -- everyone on meta should use a greasemonkey script to block the meme question from the front page so that the name changers can crap in everyone's sandbox have their fun. Heaven forbid that a moderator try to help the community as a whole.

Unfortunately, the comment mechanism doesn't support the strike element. Without it the comment suffers so, after several experiments, I deleted it. Some would undoubtedly claim that it's suffering enough as is and deleting it merely put it out of its misery, but I digress.

Clearly the use of strikethrough conveys meaning in a manner that is much more concise than the alternative. Given that comments are length limited, I think adding support for it would be useful.

share|improve this question
2  
Can't you find some other way (lick sticking it in parentheses (what about whispering in italics? (or maybe even nesting parentheses (nesting FTW(!))))) to make an aside? –  random Nov 28 '09 at 13:56
9  
@random If you're licking your comments, you're doing it wrong. –  random Nov 28 '09 at 13:59
3  
Why not just say what you were going to say? Why beat around the bush? –  random Nov 28 '09 at 14:06
3  
Because the strike through actually draws more attention to it, thereby emphasizing it in a way that making it parenthetical or simply stating it doesn't. –  tvanfosson Nov 28 '09 at 14:12
    
Having said that, you'd like to have some cake and eat it too? –  random Nov 28 '09 at 14:15
    
No. Too stuffed from Thanksgiving. Thanks for offering, though. –  tvanfosson Nov 28 '09 at 14:19
1  
Or you could just be civil and not write comments like that. Might as well drop some F bombs. For shame. –  snicker Nov 28 '09 at 19:15
    
Because the idea that I ought to have to use a particular browser, install a plugin, and use a script so that a group of adolescents can do whatever they want seemed to call both for that level of sarcasm and that particular imagery. –  tvanfosson Nov 28 '09 at 22:17
    
This question is relevant to your interests: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/15143/… –  snicker Nov 29 '09 at 5:06
3  
Did you even read my comment or only the one mildly offensive word in it? Yes, it's sarcastic but I didn't personally attack anyone, imply anything about their parentage, or indicate that they're of sub-average intelligence. I merely used sarcasm to point out the absurdity of the answerer's position that if you want to avoid the kind of behavior that I likened to a cat using a child's sandbox for a litter box -- an apt metaphor used previously to describe it -- that you should be the one to jump through the hoops instead of the offenders being restrained from their behavior by a moderator. –  tvanfosson Nov 29 '09 at 15:52
    
The fact that you are having to defend it leads to the conclusion that the comment is questionable at best. –  Steven Penny Jun 14 '12 at 20:23
    
@svnpenn I suppose I could have used the word defecate, but it lacked the punch I was going for. Or is it sarcasm in general that you object to? –  tvanfosson Jun 14 '12 at 20:54
    
The whole motivation for your question is not to help people, or to better the site, but for your personal need to be snarky/sarcastic to other people. –  Steven Penny Jun 14 '12 at 21:13
1  
Whether this questioner's motivation was to allow snarkiness, or not, does not reduce the fact that others would like to correct their comments with strikethrough so that the earlier form can be seen, especially as the earlier form would have been the version used for emails and notifications. –  Mark Hurd Sep 20 '12 at 1:15

2 Answers 2

We're not sure whether we want to add it to comments. Jeff's answer obviously isn't valid anymore (the triple-dash strike syntax is the only difference between the MarkdownMini versions for chat and for comments, so there's no real technical reason against this anymore).

But really the only valid reason for strikethrough in comments we can think of is for adding snark. In chat, that may be valid (if used moderately) as a way to convey things in text that are easier in spoken conversations, but I'm not sure this is a good idea in comments.

The purpose of this answer is really to re-open this discussion. Technically, it's now trivial to add strikethrough to comments. But for adding it, we'd need a case to be made that it's useful for more than, as Kyle put it, "obnoxious snarky poor humor".

share|improve this answer
18  
̶C̶o̶m̶m̶e̶n̶t̶s̶ ̶d̶o̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶n̶e̶e̶d̶ ̶s̶t̶r̶i̶k̶e̶ ̶o̶u̶t̶.̶.̶.̶ –  Lix Jun 4 '12 at 13:23
2  
FWIW, I see two valid reasons: 1) for emphasis; snarky or not, strikethrough draws visual attention to the text and 2) for editing; using strikethrough allows you to modify your comment within the window and still retain context from the previous version. –  tvanfosson Jun 5 '12 at 14:28
    
I know this will count as 'too localized' as a reason for adding strike to comments, but just so you know there is at least one valid reason.... I was trying to add a commment to a question referencing chapter 5 of Steve Krug's 'Don't Make Me Think' and there was no easy way for me to type 'Omit <s>needless</s> words'. –  David HAust Jul 17 '12 at 6:48

The main problem is that there's no markdown equivalent for <strike> or <s>.

At the moment we only support markdown in comments.

share|improve this answer
5  
Egads man! Why are you not using <del> instead? –  random Nov 28 '09 at 14:18
3  
a very limited subset of markdown, really--just bold, italic, and code –  Kip Nov 28 '09 at 14:48
1  
Could ---this is strike through--- be a possible way of adding this to the local implementation of Markdown? –  perbert Feb 24 '10 at 14:19
    
I also feel it would be good, maybe with something like -[we're on strike] –  Camilo Martin Nov 8 '10 at 6:10

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .