From ArchWiki
(Redirected from DocumentRequests)
Jump to: navigation, search

Is the wiki missing documentation for a popular software package or coverage of an important topic? Or, is existing content in need of correction, updating, or expansion? Write your requests below and share your ideas...

See ArchWiki:Reports to report questionable contributions. Please sign your edits and feel free to comment on others' requests.

General requests

Inaccurate content
Pages flagged with Template:Accuracy.
Outdated content
Pages flagged with Template:Out of date.
Obsolete pages
Pages flagged with Template:Archive.
Irrelevant or unhelpful content
Pages flagged with Template:Remove.
Incomplete content
Pages flagged with Template:Expansion.
Content with language or style issues
Pages flagged with Template:Style.
Non-standard laptop pages
Pages flagged with Template:Laptop style.
Duplicate effort or overlapping scope
Pages flagged with Template:Merge.
Misleading names
Pages flagged with Template:Move.
Poor translations
Pages flagged with Template:Bad translation.
Incomplete translations
Pages flagged with Template:Translateme. See also ArchWiki Translation Team.
Incomplete content
Pages flagged with Template:Stub (deprecated).
Deprecated titles
Pages flagged with Template:Redirect.
Dead or broken links
Pages flagged with Template:Dead link. Should be repaired or replaced.
Templates with an undefined parameter
Pages automatically flagged with Template:META Error
Unexplained presence of an article status template
Pages automatically flagged with Template:META Unexplained Status Template.
Application listed without links to packages
Pages automatically flagged with Template:META Missing package.
Misspelled or deprecated templates
Need to fix template or change to new template.
Noindexed pages
Automatic tracking category.
Duplicate arguments in template calls
Automatic tracking category.

Also note that Special:WantedCategories can show additional automatic tracking categories.

Problem redirects

Note: Redirects should not point to other sites and ones that do sometimes erroneously show up on these pages.

Broken package links

Tango-view-fullscreen.pngThis article or section needs expansion.Tango-view-fullscreen.png

Reason: Add documentation for all the hints: meaning + recommended action (Discuss in ArchWiki:Requests#Strategy for updating package templates)

ArchWiki contains many broken links to packages not found either in official repositories or AUR, which is the result of packages being merged, split or removed from the repositories. All pages in the main namespace are regularly checked by a bot, which checks all instances of AUR, Grp and Pkg templates, tries to automatically update them and marks them with Template:Broken package link when it is not possible to update them automatically.

To fix a broken package link, do not simply remove the reference to the packages from the wiki, do some research first:

  • Search the package database (pacman -Ss) and AUR, it is possible that the package was merged/renamed.
  • If looking for a specific file, for example a binary that was part of the package, pkgfile might do the trick.
  • If unsure, mark the page or section with an appropriate status template rather than completely removing the reference to the package.
  • For AUR3 package links marked with Template:Aur-mirror, you may consider resubmitting them to the AUR if interested in maintaining them.

All pages with broken package links are tracked in Category:Pages with broken package links.

Creation requests

Here, list requests for topics that you think should be covered on ArchWiki. If not obvious, explain why ArchWiki coverage is justified (rather than existing Wikipedia articles or other documentation). Furthermore, please consider researching and creating the initial article yourself (see Help:Editing for content creation help).


How to configure SAMBA PDC + LDAP in Arch Linux? (Moved from another page. Hokstein 19:57, 16 September 2007 (EDT))

Left-Handed Adjustments for Desktop Environments

I was thinking it would be helpful for lefties if there were a list of configuration options for each desktop environment that facilitate left-handed use of mice and touchpads. I'm not sure if this is related enough to Arch to include in this wiki, but I haven't had a lot of luck finding information for my own DE (KDE) let alone for others. I will start writing down information, and if no one else thinks there should be a separate page for this, I'll just add the information I find to each individual DE's page. —ajrl 2013-08-11T15:09−06:00

I think a separate page is better. -- Fengchao (talk) 11:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Input methods

Currently there is no page on ArchWiki properly describing various input methods generally. There is only Internationalization#Input_methods_in_Xorg, but it has several problems:

  • missing descriptions
  • X compose key does not fit in
  • GTK has a default "simple" input method featuring the Ctrl+Shift+u shortcut for entering a unicode character (this was added recently into a wrong article: [1]) - again, no description
  • no description of XIM - outdated, but sometimes used as fallback?

So this is quite enough material to start a new great article ;)

-- Lahwaacz (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Update to note: While Internationalization#Input_methods_in_Xorg itself still remains a stub, we had editors contributing language specific instructions which were set as subpages of the article:
Internationalization/Japanese and Internationalization/Korean
--Indigo (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


An article, or even stub that links to resources, explaining what DRI is, why it's important, differences between DRI 1, 2, 3, how DRI1 is no longer supported as of xorg-server 1.13, simple xorg.conf code explaining the DRI section, enabling the composite and render extensions there, these and more. Just my thoughts.


ldns is a core package with no wiki documentation. It is also relatively new in the world of DNS tools and is not well covered on the Internet. Documentation of basic features and what it is not (eg a replacement for bind) would provide a valueable resource. MichaelRpdx (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The description of the ldns package is "Fast DNS library supporting recent RFCs". The official homepage mentions that several example programs are included with the library, the official docs is probably best for programmers. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


Surprisingly, there is no wiki page describing the installation and configuration of Perl, unlike Python, Ruby etc. Could include the installation of CPAN modules and a list of good tutorials for beginners, too. So far there is only guides for packaging Perl and its modules (Perl Policy and Perl package guidelines respectively) -- bluestreak0 01:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Linux console

I was thinking that a new page for the console would be a good idea. The Wikipedia:Linux console article gives a short general overview, but obviously doesn't concern the configuration. Since it's an independent system, configured separately from any graphical environment, it would bring together several related sections across multiple articles in one place. It's a fairly complex system and difficult to cover in any depth in small sections across other articles (such as Fonts). I've put together a basic example, User:Teppic74/Linux_console. -- Teppic74 (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Sounds interesting, but I don't know how deep you want to go in the description, it may be too much for a single page as, according to your outline, the resulting article would cover all Fonts#Console fonts, Keyboard configuration in console, part of Extra keyboard keys, Map scancodes to keycodes and Extra keyboard keys in console. The keyboard configuration is split mainly because the configuration for Xorg is connected to it, I don't know how this would be done if the low-level description is moved. On the other hand, some of these articles could use some reorganization, so it may still be possible... -- Lahwaacz (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I feel this is part of the problem, that the details concerning the console are tacked on to other articles rather than being naturally associated with them. As things stand, I think the documentation is lacking. I don't think a huge amount of information is needed, it would just be helpful to be in one place, as the console is mostly isolated from the rest of the system. The other articles could link to the console article for further details. Another possibility is separate articles exclusively for the console display and keyboard, but they're obviously part of the same topic. -- Teppic74 (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


I think creating a page and mentioning ways to improve sublime-text integration with Gnome would be a good idea. The trick is if you run sublime with --class=<filename of sublime text .desktop file, e.g. sublime_text_3>, it would help Gnome and XFCE to group sublime instances with its respective desktop file. This is mentioned in the comments of the aur package but I think it's better that this would be in the wiki.--183.amir (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Forum link

Moved from Talk:Bash/Functions -- Alad (talk) 11:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The article has two types of forum links:

Which one is right again? --Dettalk 11:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Full URLs should be avoided, see Help:Style#Hypertext_metaphor, otherwise I know of no recommended wording for forum links. -- Alad (talk) 12:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
That section doesn't actually even talk about external links, while Help:Editing#External links says "just type the full URL", but also that "it is often more useful to make the link display something other than the URL". --Dettalk 16:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
This was already mentioned somewhere some time ago, I don't remember where nor when, anyway [2] would seem to justify the creation of a Template:BBS, just like we have Template:Bug. — Kynikos (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
The problem with a BBS template is that links to the full thread have simple query string ?id=number, whereas links to posts have ?pid=number#number. There would have to be two different templates, which would get confusing very quickly.
There are more problems with existing links to the BBS: from looking at the list you posted, there are many links specifying the page number in the query string (p=num), but FluxBB has variable/configurable number of posts per page. The links should point to either the full thread (first page), or a specific post.
-- Lahwaacz (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Like with links to bugs, a bbs url has to be pasted and manually modified anyway, but most of the times the conversion to Template:Bug ends up being done by a bot, which would be able to use two different BBS templates appropriately.
I see 5 types of viewtopic.php links:
  1. ?id=number: these could be changed to Template:BBSid instances.
  2. ?id=number&p=number: when number is 1, they could drop it and use Template:BBSid; otherwise they should point to a post as you say and use a Template:BBSpid template (we could publish a list of such links for manual fixing, since the correct post has to be found by a human, a bot can't do it).
  3. ?pid=number: these could be changed to Template:BBSpid instances, the link fragment is the same as number with a prefixed p, so it's easy to add using the same template argument.
  4. ?pid=number#pnumber: these could be changed to Template:BBSpid instances, number needs to be specified only once.
  5. ?t=number: these seem to be all broken, so they should be marked as dead, or fixed.
I've chosen Template:BBSid and Template:BBSpid instead of e.g. Template:BBSthread and Template:BBSpost thinking that it would be easier to get their relation to the url when used manually, but I'm still quite undecided (provided that we actually decide to introduce the new templates).
Kynikos (talk) 04:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
3. and 4. are identical (btw. haven't you confused their descriptions a little?), except that 3. only opens the page with the given post (based on the user's posts-per-page setting), but stays at the top of the page, whereas 4. points directly to the post (the #pnumber is the trick to do it). So 3. should also never be used, but it's trivial to transform it to 4. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 09:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Of course, I was reasoning from a bot's point of view, which would indeed see 3. and 4. as different cases. My description of 3. was assuming that the need for a fragment was obvious (hence the mention of how easy it is to add it even if it's not in the original link), but what's important is that you seem to have understood anyhow :P — Kynikos (talk) 10:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree on using only PID and ID. If you're linking to a page, you most likely should link to a PID. To distinguish between both, you could use ## for PID and # for ID.
I don't have suggestions on automating the implementation. -- Alad (talk) 11:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Modification requests

Here, list requests for correction or other modification of existing articles. Only systemic modifications that affect multiple articles should be included here. If a specific page needs modification, use that page's discussion or talk page instead and one of the #General requests templates.

As a rolling release, Arch is constantly receiving updates and improvements. Because of this the Arch wiki must be updated quickly to reflect these changes.

Should we remove or archive obsolete articles?

[Moved to ArchWiki talk:Administrators#Should we remove or archive obsolete articles?; keeping the section subtree here to prevent backlink breakage until the whole discussion is closed. — Kynikos (talk) 08:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)]

List of suggested solutions


Restoring revisions and redirection
Separation of archive content
Double redirects
Rename Template:Deletion
How to archive templates

Broken redirects

I have written a simple script to list redirects with broken fragments (i.e. when no section with given title is found on the target page). After filtering out some false positives, here is the result. (And because I am incredibly selfish, I have eaten the low-hanging fruit before sharing the rest with others ;) )

As usual, please strike the fixed items off the list. Some things to consider:

  • The section might have been renamed, either to simplify the title, or just to fix capitalization as per Help:Style#Section headings.
  • Or it might have been merged with other, more generic section. Use the most relevant section for the redirect, or just redirect directly to the relevant page.
  • In the worst case, there is no relevant content on the target page. This will probably deserve a separate discussion.

-- Lahwaacz (talk) 20:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Nice script. I fix zh-cn Chinese pages. --Fengchao (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
A little tip, check the date when the redirection was made, then check the history of the target page from that date to see what happened to the section. Alternatively, searching for the keywords of the missing section can help. -- Kynikos (talk) 01:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Update: I have removed the fixed redirects for better readability of the rest, for reference they can be found here. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 17:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Another update to the list, there are about 50 more broken redirects since the last time... -- Lahwaacz (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I go though the list and fix still broken one. -- Fengchao (talk) 08:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Hide irrelevant pages in search suggestions

Is it possible to hide some irrelevant pages in search suggestion? For example, we should not hide Dkms page, because someone will looking that word. But we should hide irrelevant suggestions, such as Internet Share. It pollutes search and more unpleasant, I have sometimes created russian page with wrong title, because of this. I mean, I just added ' (Русский)' to english title, because when you are redirected, page's title in address string is still wrong. I understand, that we could not just delete them, because of some forums may use old titles. But making them invisible in Archwiki I think is good idea. Agent0 (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Theoretically it would be possible to hide the redirects which differ only in capitalization, but MediaWiki is not able to do this. You can either get results including all redirects (default), or none: on search page click Advanced in the search bar and then unselect List redirects checkbox (and click Search to renew the results).
It seems that starting with MediaWiki 1.24, the URL for redirect pages will be rewritten to the target URL[4], which would certainly prevent the kind of mistakes you described. By the way, does anybody have an idea why ArchWiki is still at 1.22 branch?
-- Lahwaacz (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Ok, and what about hiding pages, which titles differ not only in capitalization? For example, begin typing search string 'wire', you will see many pages named "Wireless Setup", but you cannot see what ever pages' titles begins with 'wire'.
Thanks for advice. I can do advanced search, but usually I use search box, which is in left side of each page. And the problem is that I do not want to hide ALL redirects, but want hide SOME redirects, that are irrelevant.
By the way, about hiding: is it theoretically possible to hide other languages suggestions in which languages I am not interested in? For example, I want to see which pages exists with title beginning like "Blueto". In suggestions I see many "Bluetooth (Language)" pages, but do not see, that there are article about bluetooth keyboard.
It's good, that URL will be overwritten, we will wait for Archwiki to be updated by some admin.
Agent0 (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
@Lahwaacz: I've always wondered too why Pierre is maintaining a "mw-1.23" branch in the repo but not merging it; I've posted a message in arch-general about that.
@Agent0: The wiki search engine is MediaWiki's vanilla, with all its features and limitations; for an alternative, you can try an external search engine like Google, appending to the search strings. In any case, a search engine will not understand what is "relevant" and what is not, unless it's given an algorithm to do so, which is not the case for our wiki. About languages in search results, you can already add the name of a language to the search strings in order to limit the results to that language; restricting results to English is not currently possible and will be fixed by Help_talk:I18n#Language_namespace(s)_in_place_of_suffixes?.
-- Kynikos (talk) 03:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Close. --Fengchao (talk) 08:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Article guideline


Large portion of my Arch Wiki time is spent to below pages. Need a way to improve the situation. I think Archwiki:Contributing could/should hold such information.

  • Specific Laptop pages - User should: Only add information to fix things that do not work. Do not list things already work well. Do not duplicate information from Laptop.
  • Specific Application pages - If the application work out of box and the page only list needed packages. Add it to List of applications.
  • Network related apps. For example OwnCloud, only base platform setup (php, Apache) are Arch Linux specific. General settings should go upstream instead.

--Fengchao (talk) 09:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

In accordance with Help talk:Style#Better structuring, I'd like to minimize the centralization of style rules for specific pages in single articles, be it Help:Style, ArchWiki:Contributing etc. This is my position:
-- Kynikos (talk) 04:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
+1. To add to above:
--Indigo (talk) 12:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't like to add too many specific recommendations to ArchWiki:Contributing, but at the moment I'm not strongly against either, since I want to largely reorganize that page anyway one day; maybe the "Specific Application pages" and "Network related apps" rules would better fit ArchWiki:Contributing#Creating.
About renaming ArchWiki:Contributing#Announce massive edits in a talk page I'm against: I want to keep those rules as basic as possible, since their only goal must be to prevent damage that can only be fixed with complete reversions; for this reason they shouldn't refer to style rules; also their headings should be complete sentences; if a massive edit is announced in a talk page, we can point the author to Help:Style#Hypertext metaphor if necessary.
-- Kynikos (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
My concerning points are covered in different places now. Close. --Fengchao (talk) 08:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


A new page, TrackPoint, has been created to cover the configuration of the special input device typical to all/most ThinkPad laptops. There are still many pages duplicating the information, below is a complete list of pages that need to be merged. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

All pages merged. Close. --Fengchao (talk) 09:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Renamed software

Nautilus got renamed to Gnome Files

Do we want to rename every occurrence of 'nautilus' in Arch wiki or is the redirect enough? -- Karol (talk) 23:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The redirect has only 3 backlinks, 2 of which are talk pages. About normal strings, this should be a comprehensive list, but it seems pretty dangerous to do a blind mass rename with a bot.
Moving this back to the normal requests.
-- Kynikos (talk) 14:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I replaced appropriate occurrences of 'nautilus' yesterday. I preserved upstream software names e.g. (Nautilus Terminal), package names and gschema names (for obvious reasons) and executable names. -- Chazza (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Well done once again, Chazza, but the search I linked above still seems to show some appearances of "Nautilus" as file manager, so I guess we can't close this item yet. -- Kynikos (talk) 09:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I started going through the pages in the search you link to. I think it will have to be done manually seeing as paths, gschemas, executables and upstream projects that use nautilus in their name cannot be renamed. Regarding foreign language pages, if there are just a handful occurrences of 'Nautilus' google translate can be used to get the gist of a sentence and see if it is safe to change 'Nautilus' to 'GNOME Files' or 'Files' - usually it is. But for the Spanish and Arabic pages Nautilus pages, there are dozens of occurrences so I would much rather leave that to native speakers. -- Chazza (talk) 11:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Doh, I said the discussion was to be kept open, but I struck the heading anyway ^^' (thanks for re-opening it)
I was only referring to the English pages, I agree that the presence of out of date translations shouldn't be enough to keep requests in this page open, unless they are specifically about translations, which is not this case.
-- Kynikos (talk) 13:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

A list of pages where all possible instances Nautilus have been changed so we know what's been done and what hasn't. I will add to the list as I go through the pages returned in the search. -- Chazza (talk) 11:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

XBMC renamed to Kodi

Since version 14 XBMC was renamed to Kodi, see FS#43220. There are also some typos that say 'xmbc'. -- Karol (talk) 10:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I checked backlinks to Kodi of the now moved article. I think we got it covered. Can this be closed? --Indigo (talk) 09:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Indigo, unfortunately there's more, including an entry in List of applications/Multimedia and an entire section in XScreenSaver :) — Kynikos (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for search fu. I amended the last two for starters of this lot [5] [6]. Simple thing to watch for the rest is that the config directory stays ~/.xmbc/. --Indigo (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


Gummiboot is included in systemd since 220-2 as systemd-boot. Relevant search: gummiboot -- Lahwaacz (talk) 14:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup: links to non-existent packages

As of today, there are exactly 714 invalid uses (413 unique) of Template:AUR or Template:Pkg, spread across 398 pages. The complete list is on 2014-04-05. I will try to go through it and update the links, but this is not a one-man job, so I would really appreciate some help. Please remember to strike/remove the items from the list to save others' time. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The previous report is closed for further updates, please contribute to 2014-05-11. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 09:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
The previous reports are closed for further updates, please contribute to 2014-12-24. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 13:14, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
The previous reports are closed for further updates, please contribute to 2015-02-06. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
After introducing "package not found" link, should the bot pages above be removed now? --Fengchao (talk) 13:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I'll delete them eventually, for now I think they could be useful for searching through the user notes when fixing localized pages (not that many user do this...) First I will need to implement the automatic report page as suggested in #Strategy for updating package templates. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Surrounding link text

While performing #Cleanup: links to non-existent packages, the bot updated a lot of package links, but of course it couldn't update the text around them accordingly, for example [7], so that's something else that could be done. Here's the list of the changes: [8]. -- Kynikos (talk) 03:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Technical detail: the last link is now slightly inaccurate, it shows all edits of the bot made in April 2014. Is there a way to set a specific day? (in this case 5th April) -- Lahwaacz (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Cool, there's really a way, I've just noticed it :D (the magic is in the offset parameter!) -- Kynikos (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Update: the edit list for the 2014-05-11 cleanup is [9]. -- Kynikos (talk) 09:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Update: the edit list for the 2014-12-24 cleanup is [10]. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 13:14, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Update: the edit list for the 2015-02-06 cleanup is [11]. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Strategy for updating package templates

It is an open secret that the current strategy for updating package templates, which lies in creating a dedicated report page, is not very effective. The number of broken package links was 714 before the first cleanup almost a year ago. Today, after several successful cleanups the number is 979.

The first problem is that the report page is being noticed only a short time after announcing the cleanup and (almost) completely overlooked after a few days. Updating a wiki should be a continuous effort, but this strategy relies on announcing an event.

The second problem is that only English pages were consistently updated in the cleanups. No wonder since the events were announced only in English...

I have a proposal to solve the first problem, and partially also the second: instead of creating report pages and organizing cleanups, the broken package links could be marked directly in wiki pages, similarly to the way external links are marked with Template:Dead link. The result could look like this: pkgnamebroken link: hint where "broken link" is a link to a section with detailed instructions to fix the package link and "hint" is a short hint uniquely identifying the problem (given by the bot).

The proposal could be implemented in multiple ways:

  1. By introducing a single template, e.g. "Broken package link", which would take "hint" as a parameter and produce <sup>broken link: hint</sup>. This template would be added immediately after the broken instance of Pkg, AUR or Grp, exactly the same way as Template:Dead link is added to broken external links.
  2. By introducing a separate template for each Pkg, AUR and Grp, for example "Broken Pkg link", "Broken AUR link" and "Broken Grp link". These templates would take two parameters, the (broken) package name and the hint. Then, "Broken Pkg link" would produce {{Pkg|pkgname}}<sup>broken link: hint</sup> and so on.

So far I'm for the second way, which should be more favourable to the bot.

The advantage of this strategy is that broken package links and hints are continuously visible to everybody reading the wiki page, which are presumably people most interested in the topic at the moment, while maintainers can still easily go through full lists generated by Special:WhatLinksHere. Also, I would not have to announce events :)

Of course I'm still open to other suggestions on solving the above problems, or any other if I missed something.

-- Lahwaacz (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I totally support this, although method 1. looks cleaner to me, because:
  • It makes it clearer and more natural for users how to fix the template (just remove the message Vs fix the template name AND remove the message).
  • It's consistent with Template:Dead link.
Why would method 2. "be more favourable to the bot"?
Kynikos (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
The second method would only add checking additional templates. The first method would need checking for an adjacent template, which could be tricky to implement. I haven't tried it yet though, in the end it may be equally easy to the second method. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 07:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Other thing is that one of the mistakes when using AUR/Pkg/Grp templates is invalid number of parameters, e.g. [12]. If the additional parameters are to be preserved and not automatically removed by the bot, this would be impossible to mark using the second way. Well, almost impossible, we could still set the hint using a named parameter, but it would be really unclear how the link marked this way should be "fixed". So we should definitely use the first method. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Regarding your last point, I think those instances are very rare and editors will figure how to fix the link/sentence correctly (once they did the tricky part of finding where the package went). In my view this should not deter from using method 2, if there are any doubts method 1 with the bot might be problematic (over time).
Either method would be great. One suggestion regarding the current report pages: How about still producing them additionally, but onto a static page (overwritten on next run, noting a schedule, e.g. quarterly, on top)? Reason: Particularly if an editor wants to fix articles of a language, Special:WhatLinksHere is unwieldy to swim through for articles in the language. --Indigo (talk) 10:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I could certainly still produce the reports. Also being it a static page, the updating could be done automatically similarly to ArchWiki:Statistics (so far I have created the report pages manually).
I have implemented the first method in the bot script today. Since it has taken me almost half a day, it was probably not "equally easy" to the second method, but I think it works quite well and safely now. Template:Broken package link is now created and its "broken link" link points to #Broken package links, feel free to improve both.
I was also thinking about how to integrate #Surrounding link text into #Broken package links, maybe the link to the bot's "contributions" with fixed date should be automatically put somewhere on each run? This task also depends too much on context, so the links like [13] are not very useful. In a way, it is already marked on the pages, because the link points e.g. to AUR and the context says otherwise. Also, we probably don't have the workforce to do systematic checking on this task, so is it even worth to include these instructions/links?
-- Lahwaacz (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I did not mean to incur an extra manual task regarding the static page, just recalled how helpful it is to do the task systematically. It is related to your question about a run result page of the bot though. For cross-checking the bot's contributions for consistency we can filter like you do above and that should be enough imo. To work on the content, a bot result page probably would require manual transformation like the current method again. So, not required but an option.
Regarding the template: I would leave out "the hint" because the sup-text gets too long and breaks text badly on small resolutions. "Broken link" should be enough, not? Also I would let "Broken link" link itself to Template:Broken_package_link. This way we can change the link to the instructions (#Broken_package_links) noted there in case they move (e.g. to ArchWiki:Contributing) at a later point, or we decide to expand the instructions in the template itself a little, without needing a bot run over existing broken links again. --Indigo (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I actually like your idea about the report page. Don't worry about the manual work, it can all be automated :) The report page could also include some statistics that can be collected during the update, e.g. how many broken links are there per language/in total.
I think that it is important to include the hint, except for the obvious "package not found", which is included only for consistency (and because the template would otherwise end with the : ] sequence). It may be silly that the hint is longer than the package name (the message "invalid number of template parameters" is probably too long anyway), but the only alternative I can think of is using some cryptic abbreviations like "PNF" for "package not found", which would be explained among other instructions pointed to by the "broken link" link.
Having the instructions on this page has the advantage that it is linked from the navigation bar on the left, whereas Template:Broken package link would not be as easily discovered "by accident". The template page should serve mainly as a description of the template itself and just link to the instructions, so I'd leave it this way. Of course if the instructions are moved, the link in the template can be updated accordingly.
-- Lahwaacz (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
(I was writing this while Lahwaacz was writing his post above, and he saved before me, but I think this comment can still be useful)
Well done Lahwaacz for implementing method 1.
The problem of grouping broken links by language would IMO be more naturally solved with localized Template:Broken package link templates, instead of using a report: it would be easy to add this feature to the bot.
The problem of the context wording is clearly unsolvable automatically, but for completeness I would mention it briefly in #Broken package links. I don't think adding any links is going to be of any usefulness; in theory a list of the changes could indeed be maintained in a report, and the entries stricken whenever each link's surrounding text is manually checked to be mentioning the correct location of the package; I'm not sure how popular such a list would be though, and the text would also be fixed anyway by casual users whenever they notice the inconsistency while reading the article. An alternative is using the bot to only always add the broken link template, even when the package template could be updated automatically, letting instead the users do all the actual updates manually; this method could be integrated with Wiki Monkey's editor assistant, which would complete the template updates in the editor, but still allow checking the changes before saving (already implemented there).
About leaving out "the hint", maybe we could instead remove "broken link: " and move the link to "the hint". Would adding a light-red background to "the hint" help having it recognized as a link status template, even if "broken link: " isn't there anymore? But still, this method would make the template inconsistent with Template:Dead link, unless we want to update that one too.
If we want the link to ArchWiki:Requests#Broken package links to be flexible in case we want to move the instructions somewhere else, I'd say the most natural way would be to use a redirect like Broken package link that we can point to wherever we want.
Kynikos (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

index.php in url address

Admins of Arch Wiki, do you noticed, that in every page address begins with Why? It is uncomfortable. Why could not you do just article name after — Agent0 (talk|contribs) 22:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Administrators can't configure the entry-point urls, that's something that should be done in LocalSettings.php, which however is currently unpatchable because of FS#35545.
Nonetheless I agree with you, urls could be prettified by removing "index.php/", I think has the best configuration in this respect. Documentation is in mw:Manual:Short URL/LocalSettings.php. Backward compatibility wouldn't be a problem since urls can be easily rewritten by the http server.
Kynikos (talk) 01:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I have noticed, that article's path became Better, but still with ugly index.php. I agree with you, french arch linux wiki did varian which I wanted: just clearly But according to [14] it is not recommended in some cases. As I understand, it just do not allow you (Pierre) to use some titles as articles, for example, but really, what reason to have such articles =D. And another problem may be that it may require root access to hosting server. Does is running on virtual server or it is hosted on a normal server? — Agent0 (talk|contribs) 09:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Change drive naming/accessing to UUID?

Trying to install drives with/out Luks, LVM on internal, external drives is quite complicated currently. Following the ralated articles suggest different ways of reaching the goal. Many different drive name conventions are suggested, eg.:

  • /dev/sda2
  • /dev/md0
  • /dev/mapper/md/0
  • /dev/mapper/vgroup-lvm-root
  • /dev/vgroup-luks/root
  • ...

Some of them don't work with portable external drives. This overcomplicates setting up encrypted drives in different situations. My suggestion is, to change all drive related articles to one specific solution of addressing drives universal. Currently I think of UUDI drive naming as a way to go. This would ease the process of drive naming in all kinds of situations:

  • The reader is guided through system setup along one red line
  • Troubleshootiing "no drie found" is strait forward
  • Many sections become clearer to read even when not reading the whole article
  • Articles are easier to write and maintain
  • Beginners have an easier read and geta better idea of how to access drives
  • Accessing internal/external encrypted drives is easy

' LMV or other virtual file systems are easier to describe and setup

Ok, I know it is a big suggestion. I wanted to bring it up here, bacause I have the impression that following one primary path would help a lot - everyone involved. It doesn't need to be done in one day. While I think to have one suggested guideline would be a good start. Then with thain mind, we all have it easier to change those sections while Writing/editing Wiki entries.

T.ask (talk) 11:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, To your own examples above: using an UUID for a /dev/mapper/* device declaration is generally unnecessary (the uniqueness of the device is determined when it is mapped). I think you overestimate the amount of users who actually require setting up the examples where it really matters (e.g. external drives). What I don't understand is why you consider using UUIDs being easier to read/describe. For starters the terribly long UUIDs will break formatting in many cases, e.g. making code blocks in-text not possible. An UUID itself gives no contextual hint, something that a device name does. If you look at the three examples in Persistent block device naming#Boot managers, you really find the UUID one the easiest?
I think you are certainly right in that we may lack crosslinks to Persistent_block_device_naming in some articles where it may be important to use an UUID. Maybe we also need an example section to illustrate singular important points in Persistent block device naming and maybe there are individual articles/sections where content should indeed use a form of persistent naming straight away.
Suggestion: How about using Talk:Persistent block device naming to assemble a list of particular article sections with content where persistent naming should be made more prominent? That way we could also figure if and which examples may be useful to be added. --Indigo (talk) 17:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I started this topic because "by design" Linux has so many ways to assign drives and the Wiki uses them kind of "randomly". Finding the best drive naming method for the Wiki is my intention. Giving the reader a hand, by enabling him/her to understand one way of accessing drives and collect all the others somewhere.
I'm suggesting UUIDs, because they can be used for local and mobile situations. They are easy to use. The UUID format is universal and is independent of the location (local/mobile) or the context (LVM, Raid, Luks, ...) in which they are used.
The reason why I'm bring this up is, that it seems, the wiki has currently no standardized form of drive path declaration. If we can find one practical method, it will be easier to write, edit and maintain articles. Everyone involved will know then, which method is the recommended.
Therefore, I wanted to start an open conversation, to find ideas to improve the situation. I guess, UUIDs are also a good choice, because they are easy to substitute with pseudo code, eg.:
  • "mount /dev/disks/by-uuid/e9ea05ce-0ccb-87a1-c71e-90fab8be1944 /mnt"
could then be written as:
  • "/dev/disks/by-uuid/[UUID] /mnt"
instead of having the choice of:
  • "mount /dev/sda3 or
  • /dev/mapper/vgroup--lvm-root or
  • /dev/md/0 or
  • /dev/md0 or
  • ... /mnt"
The reader immediately knows:
  • "I just need to alter [UUID]"
There is no need to know of all possible alternative methods making use of the Wiki example. Because the user already learned (Beginners Guide) how to determine UUIDs those examples are well adoptable.
Reduced uncertainties like the reader had before:
  • Can I use that example's local path in my case, too?
  • What's my case anyway? And how is it different for the one provided?
  • Is my drive IDE, SATA or ... what?
  • Where and how is the correct format of my drive/partitions's path?
  • I need an example to boot my USB drive everywhere. That provided example doesn't work for me. Where is the article I need to know?
  • I skimmed through many articles, no success so far. There must be one, but where?
  • I have an Luks, Raid, LVM (or mixed) situation here. The current article just uses /dev/sdi3. What to do?
  • Which article do I need to read first? I can't use the current example. How about alternatives?
The reader's issue is, that "/dev/sdb3" drive paths aren't that descriptive without the knowledge of how and when they are used as written. They are nice for that particular situation, but may immediately loose their meaning in other use cases?!
If we could pick out one drive naming method the Wiki uses, then we are able to eliminate many of the upper soliloquies and ...
  • We get a good article structure for the writer, reader and maintainer.
  • The provided method will work in either situation (local/mobile/..).
  • All alternative methods can be listed in one conversion article/table.
The reader can quickly move on reading the article:
  • Great, I already know how to determine UUIDs. I just change it..
As you mentioned, crosslinks then point to one subpage, where the conversion to other alternative methods is explained.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to imply something is wrong with the current way the Wiki does it. This just a natural process how something grows. A bit of standardization may help here.
I'm for UUIDs so far, because are easily exchangeable and can be written as [UUID] in the Wiki.
OMG, I wrote a huge wall of text. Sorry for that. It's not easy and very time consuming writing down what I wanted to say. as a non-native speaker. I hope, it's now easier to understand what my intention was. I'm kind of uncertain that I found the right words. --T.ask (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for elaborating on the background of why you propose it. No need to apologize at all for taking the time to give input how to improve our wiki! I just want to add two thoughts on it:
(1) One reason descriptive device declarations (/dev/sda/...) are easy to grasp is that everyone is used to them. It starts when you open any partitioning tool - you start it for a device from the /dev tree. Try to find the term "UUID" in the manpage of cfdisk/cgdisk/parted (fdisk has it, the others not a mention). With this I don't want to say your intention to introduce the user early to use persistent naming is wrong, just that using descriptive naming is common and, thereby, accessible to the reader.
(2) I like your idea of using a "/dev/disks/by-uuid/[YOURUUID] /mnt" format (we call other instances of such 'pseudo-variables'). Still, if you used it in an article context, e.g. an encrypted LVM, you would still have to more verbosely describe which dev/blockdevice/vg/lv UUID is meant to be mounted on /mnt. I still can't really picture for myself how writing and reading it is easier in general.
As I wrote above, I agree we might need to pinpoint the advantages of persistent naming more, but we do some already (e.g. right from the start: Beginners' guide#Generate an fstab). In short I believe we are better off with the way we have it (no rule on it, as long as the contribution fits the article contributed to all editors may choose what's best in context). That's it from me. Looking forward to read feedback & other opinions. --Indigo (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
IMO man page examples are sometimes a bit behind "new standards". That's natural and this shouldn't prevent us from moving a bit more forward. With Arch we have UUIDs - lets use them :)
In case the user doesn't know UUIDs, we will guide him/her to a short conversion-table/article on how to switch to UUIDs. Actually it's much easier to grasp than often thought:
  • Just enter lsblk -f and it's obvious which UUID points to which drive in any context (raid, luks, lvm, ...). As this Get UUID example shows, just copy the corresponding UUID and use it with all UUID Wiki examples. IMHO it's quite easy.
I see where you are coming from, while I'm confident the reader will learn fast how UUIDs work. A new user will not even know which other options have been there before. Moreover, as the reader is already familiar with UUIDs he/she won't experience future problems with moving drives around. The experienced user just reads the conversion-table/article.
You see, I'm quite confident that the user will grasp UUIDs easily. Also, this will prevent him/her from experiencing future problems. We just need the courage to do the first step. It's not something we need to do in one day. We have all the time to slowly move into one direction.
That's why I would also appreciate other opinions on this topic here.
T.ask (talk) 12:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, T.ask, thank you for discussing this, however I'm not sure if this is all only theoretical or you have a precise idea of how to put it into practice, because after reading all the discussion I haven't understood very well how this idea would change our articles. At this stage you must choose one of our important articles, e.g. LVM, and explain us how the article would change in details, so we can discuss on something more tangible. — Kynikos (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Kynikos. Yes, it's always better to have a good practical example if things seem to be complicated. I'm quite busy right now. When I find the time, I will start changing the Wiki (slowly) as I mentioned before. LVM is a nice example, while I would like to start with those sections which are easier to adapt and more commonly used. Especially if I need to add a new subsection (How do you work with UUIDs) beforehand. --T.ask (talk) 10:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
As I said, it would be better if you showed us an example here or in your User page before starting to actually "chang[e] the Wiki". Take your time of course :) — Kynikos (talk) 02:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

User and group pacnew files

I just went about handling .pacnew files of filesystem and believe we are missing content for it. It's important, as one can havoc a system mishandling them. Neither Users and groups nor Pacnew and Pacsave files mentions it; both should in my view. I'm creating the item here to:

  1. Check if I missed where it may be mentioned.
  2. Confirm procedure for handling them: can anyone think of valid reasons/cases in the current situation not to delete passwd/group/shadow.pacnew files?
  3. Ensure we add it to the relevant places. Opinions?

--Indigo (talk) 12:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, the user and group database files are handled also from filesystem.install so the only difference I ever got from a .pacnew file was different ordering or (compatible) database format changes. Anyway, I'm wondering as well what is the best way to handle the .pacnew for these 4 files. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Searching the BBS yields a few threads, e.g. [15]. All I saw seem to suggest the files can be deleted. I remember an update where bash path changed; the .pacnew used /usr/bin while the original still had /bin path. I guess that would count as an example under "compatible" changes. A manual sorting with pwck and grpck could be part of the explanation how to diff the files before deletion. Also grpconv and pwconv should be mentioned briefly in my opinion. I added [16] and [17] for now.
Anyone has input for (2.) or (3.) above? --Indigo (talk) 09:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


The FAQ could use an entry like "After upgrading my kernel, I can't mount USB devices", preferably linking FS#16702. See [18] for a case where users are not aware of this. -- Alad (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

+1, but I'd place it into General troubleshooting. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 07:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Pacman hooks

Hooks support is mandatory as of 2016-04-23 [19], and .install files in the repos are gradually being outphased: see DeveloperWiki:Pacman Hooks -- Alad (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Bot requests

Here, list requests for repetitive, systemic modifications to a series of existing articles to be performed by a wiki bot.