Difference between revisions of "ArchWiki talk:Reports"

From ArchWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(New case: Persistent block device naming + SMART?)
(Persistent block device naming + SMART?)
Line 127: Line 127:
===Persistent block device naming + SMART?===
===Persistent block device naming + SMART?===
[https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Persistent_block_device_naming&diff=160844&oldid=prev Does SMART fit here?] IMHO [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=SMART&diff=prev&oldid=160841 this edit] doesn't warrant linking persistent block device naming with SMART. I'd like to undo [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Persistent_block_device_naming&diff=160844&oldid=prev the former edit] - any other ideas? -- [[User:Karol|Karol]] 16:32, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
[https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Persistent_block_device_naming&diff=160844&oldid=prev Does SMART fit here?] IMHO [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=SMART&diff=prev&oldid=160841 this edit] doesn't warrant linking persistent block device naming with SMART. I'd like to undo [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Persistent_block_device_naming&diff=160844&oldid=prev the former edit] - any other ideas? -- [[User:Karol|Karol]] 16:32, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:SMART has basically nothing to do with persistent naming. +1 for removing link. [[User:James Eder|James Eder]] 17:53, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

Revision as of 21:53, 20 September 2011

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.

Archive discussions 1 day after closing.

See ArchWiki:Spam to report vandalism. Please sign your edits and feel free to comment on others' reports.


Softphone should be marked for deletion in coherence with this edit? (with which I agree) -- Kynikos 11:52, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

I don't see ekiga, linphone and twinkle anywhere on the Common Applications page. I would either leave Softphone or merge it with Common Applications although I'm not sure how common those softphone apps are. -- Karol 17:29, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
You're right, those apps can't be called "common"... The fact is that, to me, pages like that look too much like duplicates of Categories, and I don't like duplications... I don't know, maybe this is more a style problem, but at least we could rename pages like that with "List of ..." ("List of softphopne applications" in this case) like Wikipedia does? Or we could add lists with short descriptions directly in Category pages? -- Kynikos 05:13, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
Apart from Skype those apps don't have their own wiki pages in our wiki, so you can't create a category 'Softphone'. Renaming this page to 'List of softphopne applications' looks fine to me but maybe in this case we should tell people to use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_SIP_software and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_VoIP_software ? Or do we allow to create an Arch-centric (i.e. no Windows-only apps) "copy" of those articles? -- Karol 05:40, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
The problem is where exactly would you put the links to the Wikipedia articles? Maybe we could allow the creation of Categories with a few members but containing lists of external references (with short descriptions)? -- Kynikos 05:58, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
I was thinking about something like this: it not only lists the pages in the category, but also provides some additional info at the top of the page. -- Karol 16:30, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
Probably the only problem would be that the search engine doesn't seem to show categories among the results, so the keyword "softphone" would be lost in this case. I would reconsider merging Softphone with Common Applications, and this would also change my mind about its title, List of Applications could be the best solution. -- Kynikos 08:51, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

Environment variables

(Just a report) A new page: Environment Variables (with discussion); a discussion going on here; a section in Bash that was requested for moving to Environment Variables on January 3rd. -- Kynikos 05:31, 30 May 2011 (EDT)

Define 'common' and 'lightweight' applications

W/o clicking on the link, can you tell me what kind of app Sunflower is? Who says which apps can be considered lightweight? Is there a need for such a gatekeeper? -- Karol 16:00, 30 May 2011 (EDT)

First thing I'd move this discussion in Help:Style. Second thing, not only I agree with you, but I don't even know how one can discern common applications from uncommon ones. If it were for me, I'd take those list, and many others (recently we've seen Softphones, Multimedia... (EDIT: Emacsy Applications)) and just merge them in a unified article "List of applications" (or similar), thus also avoiding duplicates; possibly the article could have subpages, but it would be much tidier... and simple. If it's necessary, if there's a recognized most common application in a group, one can easily highlight it in bold. -- Kynikos 17:24, 30 May 2011 (EDT)
Oh yessss! How do we discuss those ideas: a forum thread, discussion pages of the soon-to-be-merged articles or just a nod from the wiki admins? -- Karol 18:17, 30 May 2011 (EDT)
Eh in this case the best thing would be a forum thread, you can start it, I'll follow. I will also suggest again my idea of using the editable part of category pages for these lists. -- Kynikos 05:12, 31 May 2011 (EDT)
A while ago I started to split the sections in Common Applications into Console and Graphical sections, and I think that's the only NPOV split we can do. In my opinion, all the information in Lightweight Applications should be merged in, the differentiation is subjective and biased. For example, Chromium uses the most memory of any modern browser due to the per-tab processes and the package is 82MB (dynamic linking would break their security model), compared to 29MB for firefox, but it was someone's favourite application so they included it on the page. thestinger 11:49, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
+1 wrt chromium. Do we want to open a thread on the forums before such moves? I don't think it's worthwhile. -- Karol 12:52, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
+1 I withdraw my proposal to start a forum thread for this, the change goes clearly in the direction of simplicity. About splitting sections in console/graphical apps I agree, but if you instead meant to create two separated articles "Graphical applications" and "Console applications" I'm against. -- Kynikos 07:48, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
I meant splitting up the individual sections like this. thestinger 10:39, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
+1 for removing/merging lightweight applications. Please continue to split graphical and console applications, as well! -- pointone 17:39, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

Script to update mirrorlist

This has been added in the beginners' guide: I'd move it to Mirrors. See discussion. -- Kynikos 08:05, 1 June 2011 (EDT)


I don't get the purpose of this page: can anybody help me, or I should ask the author? -- Kynikos 08:08, 1 June 2011 (EDT)

We already have General Recommendations and Filesystem Hierarchy Standard so I don't really see the purpose of that page. -- Karol 08:29, 1 June 2011 (EDT)
Doubtful that this page will last, but I would recommend contacting the author to see what was had in mind. -- pointone 17:17, 6 June 2011 (EDT)
Told the author on his talk page. -- Kynikos 06:12, 7 June 2011 (EDT)
He has provided an explanation on Talk:Standards: this discussion continues there. -- Kynikos 05:59, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
Status? Thestinger edited this article recently but I still vote for removal. -- Karol 16:59, 23 August 2011 (EDT)
I flagged the article for deletion. I will delete it within a week or so if no one objects. -- pointone 17:42, 23 August 2011 (EDT)
+1 for deletion. This kind of stuff should be in included in General Recommendations. thestinger 11:58, 1 September 2011 (EDT)


Would you consider Template:NB a localized version of Template:Note, like Template:Nota for Spanish and Italian? Note that there are also versions with standard suffix, like Template:Note (Dansk). -- Kynikos 09:13, 2 July 2011 (EDT)

I do not speak Dutch, but I believe "Nota" translates to "Note" for them, as well. I would like to remove Template:NB since it is inconsistent with the existing templates. -- pointone 17:49, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

Emacsy Applications

I don't really get the purpose of Emacsy Applications, it looks like a subjective list of some preferred applications of the author... -- Kynikos 05:10, 12 July 2011 (EDT)

Do you suggest to move it to Emacs article as 'Other apps you might like' section or move it to a user page? -- Karol 19:01, 23 August 2011 (EDT)
I don't think Emacs would benefit from such a list, I would simply delete the page, and if the author wants, he can move the content to his user page, but I doubt that. -- Kynikos 06:31, 24 August 2011 (EDT)


Somebody with knowledge on the subject should verify this edit. By the way the article should be reorganized, especially in the first part where there is extensive use of sudo; also these edits, immediately following the one reported before, seems not to fit too well in that location, and "-p" should be changed to "-d" I guess... -- Kynikos 08:15, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

Emacs Mediawiki

Is it ok for Emacs Mediawiki to stay in Category:ArchWiki Tools (English)? -- Kynikos 06:57, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

Personal articles in the wiki

Is it better suited for a user page? -- Karol 20:29, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

I think he's not using the article for personal notes, he's sharing his knowledge on the matter. However he should be warned to avoid personal statements, probably the title should be changed, he should seriously evaluate the possibility to merge the content with Small Business Server and above all with Small Business Server (Italiano), which has far more content (and its own category), as he can read and write both languages. And then the current category doesn't exist, headings should start from 2nd level and so on :)
Of course this is my idea, if you bring more reasons why it should go to his user page we can discuss further, probably inviting also the author, so he doesn't possibly work for nothing. -- Kynikos 05:54, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
I like your idea, let's invite him to have a look at the existing articles. -- Karol 06:26, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
I'm writing him later, unless you do it first: whoever contacts him, note it down here. -- Kynikos 06:38, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
I've just sent him an email. -- Kynikos 11:39, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
A month later, nothing changed. What do we do? -- Karol 19:37, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
He never replied to my email, at least it needs the Stub template and categorization in Networking, just like Small Business Server. Other that that I don't know atm, it would be a pity to request its deletion, after all it seems to contain useful info, although I haven't checked if it duplicates the content of other articles. -- Kynikos 06:33, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

KVM, GRUB, device.map

Can somebody confirm this edit? (also the following one is related) -- Kynikos 06:31, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

Current events

I think ArchWiki:Current_events were superseded by Wiki_News. Nothing links to that page but it's protected so I can't mark it for deletion.

What should we do in such situations - posting in the discussion page of the article in question may not be effective. -- Karol 17:46, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

May be ineffective, but it's worth a try :) Then there's the good old User_talk:pointone, but also this page can work.
+1 for deletion anyway.
-- Kynikos 04:27, 2 September 2011 (EDT)
The discussion page is protected too (should have checked it before), so I've asked Pointone for assistance. -- Karol 09:34, 2 September 2011 (EDT)
Let's wait for Pointone here, his talk page looks busy enough w/o my addition and there's no need to spread the discussion onto many pages.
Sorry for the noise. -- Karol 10:01, 2 September 2011 (EDT)

A couple old protected pages

They never had any use, why not remove them?:

-- Karol 18:26, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

Optimizing Windows 9x CPU usage in QEMU

I know it's not up to the wiki standards, but is it at least correct? -- Karol 11:10, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

Windows 9x uses an idle loop instead of the HLT instruction. This essentially keeps your processor busy doing nothing while waiting for real work. So yes, it seems meteorically correct. The link maze could probably be reduced or restructured somehow. I would probably add that Win NT, Win2000 and newer do not have such issues. James Eder 12:21, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

systemd edit war

[1] and [2]. I suggested they discuss it on the systemd talk page. -- Karol 00:06, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

Seems the war is over. Closing. -- Karol 14:09, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

Software RAID and LVM articles

I have essentially completed my revision of the Installing with Software RAID or LVM article. I moved the new draft in my user space to Software RAID and LVM. I still plan on creating RAID and moving RAID/LVM specific information to their respective articles. Next I would request the deletion of the old Installing with Software RAID or LVM article and place a redirect to Software RAID and LVM. Then place a link to the most recent revision of the old article on the Talk Page of the new one. I would love it if other people could compare the two before I request deletion of the old version. ~ Filam 16:12, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

I haven't checked your work in detail, I don't event have much knowledge of RAID, but it looks good at a glance, although I haven't understood why Software_RAID_and_LVM#Update_RAID_configuration is stricken.
Of course redirecting Installing with Software RAID or LVM to one of the new pages and requesting its deletion are conflicting operations, I suggest choosing to redirect, also to make it possible to link to the old revision.
-- Kynikos 06:40, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
Ah, the strike was formatting left over from when I was drafting the article. I'll remove it now.
Thanks for the explanation. I wasn't clear about the difference between a moved article and a redirect.
~ Filam 10:42, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
I think you can remove the content of the page and leave only the redirect instead of keeping the content because people won't see it anyway - they get redirected to the new article. What about the talk page?
I think redirect pages should have only the redirect, like so. -- Karol 11:15, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
Karol is right, I have removed the content from the redirect page, then I have moved the content of the talk page to the new article's talk page, and then redirected the old talk page to the new one.
Still to do: see if some discussions in Talk:Software RAID and LVM have to be moved to Talk:RAID.
Note for Filam: good job, but next time you should first decide the title of the new page and move the old article to the new page. This, besides automatically redirecting both the article and the talk page, moves also the history of the edits and other possible statistics of the page. Only after doing that you can replace the content of the article with the new draft, and if necessary also split the article.
-- Kynikos 05:40, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
Thanks for the explanation Kynikos. That certainly makes more sense, and thank you for making those changes.
~ Filam 13:31, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
@Filam: since it seems you have good knowledge of the article, can you take a look at Talk:Software RAID and LVM and see if something has to be moved to Talk:RAID? And if some discussion are exhausted or outdated you can also just delete them. -- Kynikos 05:50, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
Kynikos, I saw your previous note and I'll certainly get around to it. [the rest of the reply has been moved to Help_talk:Style#Archive discussions?] -- Kynikos]] -- Filam 21:25, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
Great, thanks ;) -- Kynikos 06:06, 20 September 2011 (EDT)


Can somebody confirm this edit? Even GNOME 3 is launched with ck-launch-session, and it's the first wiki edit by that user. -- Kynikos 06:05, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

Maximizing Performance -> Btrfs

Some content on Maximizing Performance has been replaced with a link to a new section on Btrfs, created by the same user: the strange thing is that the removed content and the new section seem to talk about different things. Can somebody confirm the content removal or I should contact the author? -- Kynikos 06:05, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

Persistent block device naming + SMART?

Does SMART fit here? IMHO this edit doesn't warrant linking persistent block device naming with SMART. I'd like to undo the former edit - any other ideas? -- Karol 16:32, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

SMART has basically nothing to do with persistent naming. +1 for removing link. James Eder 17:53, 20 September 2011 (EDT)