Help talk:Editing

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

Hypertext metaphor

How can we find out what - if anything - links to a specific heading in the article? These links (e.g. [1] will be broken when we edit the heading. If many articles link to the one I'm editing, going through them all is not feasible. Should I run a search for (going back to the example) "detailed_usage_example" and "detailed usage example" or are there any other ways to do it? -- Karol (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems your link is already broken :). One strategy I try to use to avoid this sort of issue is to link to redirects instead of directly to the section headings. Then you can limit “What links here” to just redirects and the list is a bit more manageable. For example at the redirect Udisks points at Udev#Udisks. But this strategy would only really be appropriate for high profile sections that deserve a redirect. Of course the other thing is to try and put a bit of context in when making a link so that it is still useful even if it gets broken. Vadmium (talk) 01:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC).
Just some quick references: MetaWikiPedia:Help:What_links_here#Limitations and workarounds, MetaWikiPedia:Help:What_links_here#Finding external links to a page, Wikipedia:Help:What_links_here#Limitations, Wikipedia:Help:What_links_here#Finding_external_links_to_a_page. -- Kynikos (talk) 10:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Where to add warnings about unintended wikification?

I'm talking about [2]. Should I put it in Help:Editing#Links? -- Karol (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Editor assistants: userscripts, external editors...

Currently there is only a note about wikEd in Help:Editing#Editing, but we could make a whole section about this. I'm not sure where to put all this...

We could also mention some tips for using external editors. For example, when using Pentadactyl, it is enough to press Ctrl+i in insert mode to open the current text field in external editor. The external editor command can be configured on per-site basis, which is useful to set the filetype for syntax highlighting when editing a text field from [3]. Edit: Actually, we could just link to wikipedia:Wikipedia:Text editor support for this one...

-- Lahwaacz (talk) 11:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I like the idea, it could be a 2nd-level section (at the bottom I guess) called "Reading and editing aid tools" (should be enough catchall).
In Wikipedia:Wikipedia:User_scripts (which you had already linked in your post below) there are also other editing tools, but I think those 3 would be a good start.
We may overlook the fact that this page is only about "editing" and for the "reading" part there would be a separate page... Or maybe we could indeed create a similar section in Help:Reading for the reading aid tools.
-- Kynikos (talk) 14:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm also considering a feature request to enable support for userscripts and user-stylesheets (see $wgAllowUserJs, $wgAllowUserCss, $wgUseSiteJs, $wgUseSiteCss, note that the latter two are true by default). This would make the installation of userscripts much easier and more portable, as currently we can only use Greasemonkey scripts. There are many userscripts widely used on Wikipedia, some of them conflict with Help:Style or rely on Wikipedia templates, but most of them are really useful.

-- Lahwaacz (talk) 11:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Good luck with this one, but you'd have my full support :D -- Kynikos (talk) 14:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Feature request submitted in FS#46699. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Interwiki links

[Moved from User talk:Lahwaacz#Interwiki links. — Kynikos (talk) 05:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)]

Hi, about the w: link you edited out. Of course grammar is important. However, in my view a defined interwiki link gives additional info not presented by the little icon beside the external link anchor. Wikipedia is the most commonly used external interwiki. I was wondering the other day, if it would not be helpful to define more. For example, if we had one for all references to resources like freedesktop:systemd would be right away distinguishable. Perhaps an option would be to drop the interwiki prefixes and use distinguishable colours for interwiki/external links? --Indigo (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, like in [4] I think that the text should read the same as if there was no link - everything else is just a bonus. As for different colours or icons, the CSS allows to match interwiki links separately from external links (a.extiw instead of a.external), but matching interwiki prefixes is not possible. I think that we could change the icon, the colour is the same for all links including internal links. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Ok, good idea regarding the icon. Yet, your preference basically implies more piping to make it gramatically correct. That's ok, I have just changed my own away from it over time, starting from showing the # prefix for internal links - which is obviously not proper language as well but enhances navigation. Interwiki links are not used overly. What would be better in your view: Working on them (expand the list, icon) or merging them in the guide towards external links? --Indigo (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Regarding matching specific addresses with CSS, it's possible using attribute selectors, e.g. a.external[href^=""] as we're already doing in e.g. MediaWiki:Archlinux.css. Once upon a time we had different icons for some protocols or file types, but then we dropped them to keep it simple, see also MediaWiki talk:Archlinux.css#Excluded domains. Reintroducing different icons, this time for interwiki links, could be a nice idea if we find simple suitable images. — Kynikos (talk) 10:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, I could go hunting for icons, no problem. Yet, the problems with language usage as well as the fact that interwiki links are not used much by contributors anyway made me wonder if it would not be pragmatic to revise the note in Help:Editing#External links and move that section to 5.2. No need to abolish interwiki links, but we could use the same example (instead of google), which would also make clear it's fine to link both ways. Opinions? (could move this to Help talk:Editing too). --Indigo (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I agreed and moved this talk here.
I do prefer interwiki links over generic external ones when they can be used, I find they make the source text much clearer, so personally I would keep converting links to interwiki when possible (mostly using wiki monkey), i.e. I wouldn't advertise that it's fine to link both ways, although I'd never write in somebody's talk page just because they're using full links instead of interwiki. — Kynikos (talk) 05:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if this is an understandable explanation or if it covers all important cases, but here is a simple summary where I prefer an alternative link label and where the transparency of showing the interwiki prefix or "#" for section anchors:
  • If the link refers to the term or topic described on the other page, use an alternative label with the term or topic name. For example: "Mouse keys is disabled by default." or "Subpixel rendering is supported by most monitors."
  • If the link refers to the page itself rather than the topic it describes, simply show the target without any alternative label. For example: "See w:Mouse keys for details." or "Enable subpixel rendering as described in Font configuration#Subpixel rendering."
To consider the alternatives, the first case would look weird to me with the "w:" or "#", and in the second case an alternative label would complicate things for no reason. In some cases both ways might be so close that the editor might adjust the wording to choose according to how they want the link to look like. Also note that in the first case there might be other ways to avoid the alternative label, for example by creating a redirect from Subpixel rendering to Font configuration#Subpixel rendering.
-- Lahwaacz (talk) 10:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Yep, perfectly understandable and agreeable, I think it should be integrated into Help:Style#Hypertext metaphor and eventually into Help:Editing#Links through Help talk:Style#Better structuring. — Kynikos (talk) 06:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
The examples make perfect sense to me as well & agree Help:Style#Hypertext metaphor is good for them. I'd like to make a few changes though. I'll draft what I mean and link it here sometime soon. @Kynikos: Why do you bring in Help talk:Style#Better structuring here? Was it to say the examples don't fit this help article like that? --Indigo (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
They do fit in Help:Style#Hypertext metaphor or Help:Editing#Links, please go ahead with your draft. Help talk:Style#Better structuring is only my long-term reminder that in theory all the information (syntax, style...) about a single editing topic such as links should be in the same place. – Kynikos (talk) 10:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I now have a suggestion at User:Indigo/Sandbox#Hypertext metaphor. My thought was that the section gets more and more difficult to understand, so I tried to integrate above bullets coherently, as well as integrate Help talk:Style#Hypertext metaphor interpretation and finalise Help talk:Style#Anchor text capitalisation, both for closing. Please scroll through the edits done. Changes/reversals welcome, if you think it's a worthwhile go to replace the current version with it. --Indigo (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I like your draft and I've amended it a little. One remark about the "If the link refers to the target page itself rather than the topic it describes..." rule is about the fact that it starts with "If the link": I would consider changing the condition to "If an internal or interwiki link", and possibly discuss the style for full external links separately, since in their case it may be preferable to suggest always using an alternative anchor text using e.g. the target's <title> tag.
Then I agree with closing Help talk:Style#Hypertext metaphor interpretation and Help talk:Style#Anchor text capitalisation.
Kynikos (talk) 06:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure we should separate the cases for external links: we don't use external link examples without an anchor text in the section, so it is implicitly already suggesting for style it is preferred to use one. I don't picture how we could separate them without making external link example duplicates for the "If the link.." cases, and that gets really complicated. Also, I would not like if we explicitly forbid them without anchor texts - the quality of the link counts more than the formatting. I think it would be simpler to amend the Help:Editing#External links text/example to show how using an anchor text increases readability? --Indigo (talk) 10:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm ok to leave external links implicitly regulated, but I'd still change the second "If the link" to "If an internal or interwiki link". Anyway we can discuss this later, I think the new section can be merged now. — Kynikos (talk) 10:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Ok, cheers. Let's wait for at least Lahwaacz to have a quick look at it before merging. --Indigo (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
The "alternative anchor" term used in the draft is not explained and could be confused with the "anchor symbol (#)" in the previous point, which is technically different thing. The current Help:Style#Hypertext_metaphor calls it "alternative anchor text", Help:Editing#Internal_links calls it "alternative name" and meta:Help:Piped_link calls it "link label". Other than that, the draft looks good to me. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Ok, done. Meta wiki is itself using "alternative text" in other pages, but sure agree "link (target)" and "(link|alternative) label" is a good combo and it was ambiguous before. I can do the merging tomorrow. --Indigo (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Merge done. We can branch off this part, so we keep the original interwiki link talk item it started with, or close it all. In any case I will look for fitting icon to distinguish the link types sometime. --Indigo (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, I still see the "If the link" in the 4th bullet a little inaccurate, since actually it only covers internal or interwiki links (unlike bullet 3), however I don't see a point in insisting on that.
I'm neutral about the icons, I don't feel the need for them but I'd be available to discuss plans to introduce more; it's up to you whether to keep that branch open or not :) Also I'm adding a reminder about Help talk:Style#Hypertext metaphor interpretation and Help talk:Style#Anchor text capitalisation.
Kynikos (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, true, easy to misunderstand. Changed with [5].
Closed the other talks and this one too now. Cheers. --Indigo (talk) 18:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)