Difference between revisions of "ArchWiki talk:Reports"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Securely wipe disk and random: re, close)
m (Securely wipe disk and random)
Line 62: Line 62:
 
::--[[User:Indigo|Indigo]] ([[User talk:Indigo|talk]]) 13:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 
::--[[User:Indigo|Indigo]] ([[User talk:Indigo|talk]]) 13:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 
:::I've gone with (2): [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Securely_wipe_disk&diff=272855&oldid=272620], [[Random Number Generation]] :) Do some proofreading if you want, meanwhile I close this discussion. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 11:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 
:::I've gone with (2): [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Securely_wipe_disk&diff=272855&oldid=272620], [[Random Number Generation]] :) Do some proofreading if you want, meanwhile I close this discussion. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 11:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 +
::::Excellent. Rgds, --[[User:Indigo|Indigo]] ([[User talk:Indigo|talk]]) 13:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:30, 28 August 2013

In this page you can list:

  • Edits that a contributor made to the wiki without a proper explanation (that is what the Summary field is for) and whose validity you lack the knowledge to judge by yourself. In this case, please add a link to the edit in question with a brief explanation why you think it should be investigated. Consider contacting the contributor to ask for an explanation, which is often an effective way to solve these issues. Please report the eventual answer (if any) below the initial report. You can also link to a discussion already started in the talk page of the edited article.
  • Links to discussions started in talk pages requesting to add, delete, or modify some content in the respective articles which you do not have sufficient knowledge to answer definitively by yourself.

Please sign your edits and feel free to comment on others' reports. Discussions will be deleted 3 days after closing.

See ArchWiki:Spam to report vandalism.

New templates

Just a heads-up, if you're OK with them [1] [2] , please close the report :-) -- Karol 07:42, 14 December 2011 (EST)

If we start applying them consistently in all the tables, probably adding a proper rule in Help:Style, then I'm ok with them, since coloring cells in tables is not very straightforward even with wiki syntax.
Note their Chinese counterparts have been created too: Template:是 and Template:否. Since those templates' code is very flexible, I suggest replacing them with only 2 templates, Template:Y and Template:N, which would produce "Yes" and "No" by default, but whose first optional argument would allow them to display any other string, including translations, without the need to have localized versions of each template.
Going even a bit further, since some tables use additional colors, we may base the templates' names on their color instead of their meaning, so that we would have Template:G, Template:R, Template:Y, Template:B, and if necessary also Template:P and Template:O (purple and orange, just to complete the secondary colors). These templates should require the first argument, but I think they would be easy to use anyway, for sure much easier than the current | style="color:...." | blabla.
Waiting for opinions. -- Kynikos 09:19, 15 December 2011 (EST)
This template group would also give us an excuse to delete The Status Table Series and related templates, since they have a too narrow field of application and practically just create nested tables in the end, thus giving almost no real advantage. -- Kynikos 13:13, 24 December 2011 (EST)
I support this idea. Similar to the Template:Box COLOUR templates, a series of table cell coloured templates would ensure consistency across articles. -- pointone 16:46, 19 January 2012 (EST)
So good :) However I don't consider this an urgent task, I'm linking this discussion from a new entry among my numerous template ideas in my todo list. Of course if you or someone else want to implement it, just go for it. Just reminding that the implementation should be accompanied by some related style rules.
Also note that among my template-related ideas there's one about the Box COLOR series that seems to go in the opposite direction than the cell color templates, but I think that the colors for the Note, Warning and Tip templates should be reserved for them, and not be usable in other ways.
-- Kynikos 06:47, 20 January 2012 (EST)

Jumbo frames' "Real World Examples" section

Jumbo_Frames#Real_World_Examples <-- This section doesn't seem fitting on our wiki. This section just seems to be an advertisement for jumbo frames, and I think it should be removed. And I should also note that the methodology is a bit unreliable, in my opinion. To truly test just the difference that jumbo frames makes, one should make a RAM disk so hard disk performance is completely removed from the equation. And if we really want to sell people on switching to jumbo frames, I would rather we simply provide a one-liner plus a link to a technical white paper, IEEE conference paper, etc. Does anyone else agree?
-- Jstjohn (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if we can really consider that section as an advertisement, however it's true that benchmarking sections are not really Arch-specific, and would probably better fit a blog or some other kind of website, which could be linked from the article. A similar article is SSD Benchmarking, for example.
On the other hand it looks like an original work and I would hesitate a bit before simply deleting it, maybe moving the "Using Jumbo Frames on Arch Linux" section more to the top could be a start. User:Graysky seems to have added that section in 2009, he may be interested in discussing also about the reliability of the methodology, but I would do that in Talk:Jumbo Frames (possibly adding e.g. Template:Accuracy to the article), since this talk page is more used for discussing recent changes reports :)
-- Kynikos (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Another alternative would be moving it to a sub-page, and having a link to it somewhere in the article.
-- thestinger (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I just found this discussion. I do not feel that the examples I posted represent an advertisement in any way. They do represent a concrete example of leveraging the topic of the page on which they are written. They are a bit dated however. I agree with the RAM disk suggestion. If I get dome time over the weekend, I might update on more modern hardware under more controlled conditions.
-- Graysky (talk) 01:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Minimum supported kernel version

I've decided to report this edit here without adding a simple quick report first because I think this is quite urgent: what's the minimum kernel version we're supporting in the wiki? While it's true that linux is now at 3.4.3, linux-lts is for example still at 3.0.35, so I think in these cases we should use flexible wordings and examples so as to cover all the supported possibilities.

What do you think? -- Kynikos (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

sorry, I didn't really think about LTS, so I agree that this edit can be undone (edit: also this doesn't really match with the rest of section which still talks about loading this module manually. Not sure what I was thinking there ;) ). On this particular page, the note I added earlier should do it for now, although a more flexible wording might indeed be better. 65kid (talk) 13:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Um, I've tried to improve the situation a little bit, however my intention was also to discuss in general if we should define a minimum supported kernel version for wiki articles (this discussion should probably be moved to Help talk:Style now). I think that linux-lts's version could be a good reference point, do we have other opinions? -- Kynikos (talk) 10:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
We should take the kernel version of official iso image into consideration. User should upgrade to latest version immediately. But before that, users have to config network. For some wireless cards, it is very kernel version specific. -- Fengchao (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
So true, I'll find a way to add this to the style guide. -- Kynikos (talk) 09:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Securely wipe disk and random

Regarding this report: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=ArchWiki%3AReports&diff=271310&oldid=270287 you still find the link to Random two paras above in the same section, but that article was tagged to be merged with Securely_wipe_disk page anyway. I did the edit to add the missing info from Random to Securely_wipe_disk to complete the merge. In my view Random could be deleted for now. (If not deleting, the merge of duplicate paras should have been the other way - but Random would still remain a bit of a stub and the info is the best introduction you get for Securely_wipe_disk.) The bits I did not merge relate to wikipedia links of Pseudo RNGs other than the ones we have in the repos afaik and an explanation to the hardcoded poolsize in /drivers/char/random.c. (both good info but going too far for Securely_wipe_disk) --Indigo (talk) 10:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this. Maybe inverting the merge (all content in random) would be a better option for flexibility (e.g. random is also shyly linked from dm-crypt with LUKS). Securely wipe disk#Random data could become just a host for the links to random and frandom (note that frandom is currently mentioned under Securely wipe disk#Kernel built-in RNG).
Otherwise, random shouldn't be deleted, but redirected to Securely wipe disk#Kernel built-in RNG, and it should be attempted to recycle its links to wikipedia I guess.
-- Kynikos (talk) 11:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for considering - let's decide which way to merge then:
(1) When noting Frandom above, you might quote the whole sentence: "For ... one can consider using a pseudorandom number generator instead of the kernel, e.g. Frandom.". The wikipedia links you want to recycle could be appended there and the subsection header Securely wipe disk#Kernel built-in RNG just be deleted for clarity. Doing that the redirect Random could be done without loosing content useful overall imo. Though, Random is a more appropriate link target for other articles requiring random seeds, yes.
(2) So, alternatively for a reverse merge these recent edits should be undone. Then the Random explanations have to be expanded slightly, if we want to just link to Random. I have added a couple of links for relevant content in Talk:Random. If that page continues to exist, maybe someone else finds them useful to expand it a little.
I'm fine with watching or textually completing (1) or (2) sometime, but I'd prefer you to flip the coin now.
--Indigo (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I've gone with (2): [3], Random Number Generation :) Do some proofreading if you want, meanwhile I close this discussion. -- Kynikos (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Excellent. Rgds, --Indigo (talk) 13:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)