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Outdated content
Pages flagged with Template:Out of date.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

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.

To help with manual updates, each "broken package link" template provides a hint:

  • "invalid number of template parameters" – All AUR, Grp and Pkg templates take exactly one parameter, but the wikitext specified more (or none). In most cases the excesive parameters should be moved to the surrounding text, or removed if already there.
  • "replaced with [other package]" – The package was renamed or merged into another, which specifies the old package name in the replaces array. In most cases the old package should be simply replaced with the new one and surrounding text updated accordingly.
  • "archived in aur-mirror" – Marks old AUR3 packages, which were not submitted to AUR4, or were deleted since then. You may consider resubmitting them to the AUR if interested in maintaining them.
  • "package not found" – Default hint when none of the above applies.

All pages with broken package links are tracked in Category:Pages with broken package links. There is also an automatic report page at

Note: The bot updates only package links, but not the text around them, which is too context-sensitive. For example, in [1] the AUR link was changed to Pkg, but the surrounding text still says that the package is in AUR. These instances can be fixed and "future-proofed" by simply removing the surrounding description of where the package is; see also Help:Style#Package management instructions. We currently have no means of automatically tracking this kind of problems, suggestions are welcome.

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: [2]) - 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)


iPXE is a powerful network boot program with many features. Currently, there is no iPXE specific page to describe iPXE in details. There are some pages mentioning iPXE in the wiki, mostly related to network booting, without any further instruction on how to get iPXE to work. So I think it's worth to add a page with detailed iPXE explanation in the wiki. Alive4ever (talk) 10:08, 21 July 2016 (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

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)
Unless I'm missing something, the list below is all "Completed", so besides the translations, is there anything to be done yet? -- Lahwaacz (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2016 (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)


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 [3], so that's something else that could be done. Here's the list of the changes: [4]. -- 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 [5]. -- Kynikos (talk) 09:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Update: the edit list for the 2014-12-24 cleanup is [6]. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 13:14, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Update: the edit list for the 2015-02-06 cleanup is [7]. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Merged into #Broken package links, closing. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2016 (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. [8]. 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 [9] 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)
Since today we finally have an automatic reports page and a huge list of old packages archived in aur-mirror. I don't have precise statistics yet, but the page size is an indicator. The good thing is that the list is getting shorter each month, the bad thing is that it would take years to shrink to the pre-AUR4 size.
Other than that, I think that the current strategy works nicely, so if nobody objects, I'll consider this solved.
-- Lahwaacz (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2016 (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 [10] 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)


The FAQ could use an entry like "After upgrading my kernel, I can't mount USB devices", preferably linking FS#16702. See [11] 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 [12], and .install files in the repos are gradually being outphased: see DeveloperWiki:Pacman Hooks -- Alad (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Broken section links

The script already detects hundreds of links with broken section fragment. Before automatic solution is implemented, what would you say to automatically marking these with Template:Broken section link, similarly to how broken package links are marked with Template:Broken package link? -- Lahwaacz (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

+1. That would be helpful indeed. Maybe leave out the hint in the template to keep it short. Indigo (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I have made it look like this for now, with a link to this section: [broken link: invalid section] Of course feel free to modify it, there won't be any marked links for some time anyway... -- Lahwaacz (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Perfect, thanks. It can already be seen in recent changes how helpful it is having them marked.
For anyone wanting to help with keeping our content properly linked: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Broken section link lists the identified broken links. Indigo (talk) 11:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
There is also hidden Category:Pages with broken section links ;) Lahwaacz (talk) 11:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Interesting to see how many broken section links there are, and how long they went unnoticed... thanks for the upgrade! -- Alad (talk) 13:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Subpages in the main namespace

Subpages in the main namespace are finally enabled [13], so e.g. GRUB/Tips and tricks is now a true subpage of GRUB. Among other benefits, there is now an automatic link on each subpage leading to every existing parent page, so manual phrases like "See GRUB for the main article." on top of subpages are now useless and should be removed. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Bot requests

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