Difference between revisions of "ArchWiki talk:Reports"

From ArchWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 84: Line 84:
:::I agree with Kynikos. -- [[User:Pointone|pointone]] ([[User talk:Pointone|talk]]) 20:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
:::I agree with Kynikos. -- [[User:Pointone|pointone]] ([[User talk:Pointone|talk]]) 20:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
:::: I agree with Kynikos too. Related link is a better solution here. -- [[User:Fengchao|Fengchao]] ([[User talk:Fengchao|talk]]) 00:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
:::: I agree with Kynikos too. Related link is a better solution here. -- [[User:Fengchao|Fengchao]] ([[User talk:Fengchao|talk]]) 00:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
:Changed to use manual links each way. Seems a shame to not represent the relationship using the category system though, but it is good enough. [[User:Vadmium|Vadmium]] ([[User talk:Vadmium|talk]]) 01:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

Revision as of 01:22, 27 May 2012

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.

GNOME edits

Not sure about them. Can anyone have a look if the removed content was really unworthy of our wiki? -- Karol 06:34, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

I really don't know, GNOME would really need a trustworthy GNOME user to do some moderation... -- Kynikos 15:23, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
One thing is sure, having those scripts or not does not make a big difference I guess, maybe if nobody else has better ideas, we could just restore them to drive away any doubts. An alternative is placing them somewhere in GNOME Tips. -- Kynikos 15:36, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
See Talk:GNOME#Cleanup starting (Was: Is this still a gnome wiki?). -- pointone 15:36, 19 January 2012 (EST)
An big question hit my mind on reading this talk: What is the proper scope of GNOME page on Arch Wiki?
  1. Should the page contains all info we can find related to GNOME, include the mentioned script few people will use.
  2. Or should the page be a concise and short page only cover topic on how to get Gnome running on Arch and bugs Arch users will meet.
I chose the second. Most of Arch packages are from upstream without change. Lots of info should moved to upstream wiki page if an upstream wiki page does exist. And as an KDE user, whenever I visit KDE page, I will ask myself: "Why these detailed info is not on kde user base wiki but is here?"
This is just my own thoughts and I want to see other people's opinion. -- Fengchao (talk) 01:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Help:Style#Hypertext metaphor already answers your question in general (especially the last point); the big problem is enforcing that rule :) -- Kynikos (talk) 10:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh, it hides so deep in the article :) Maybe we can make it more visible to readers. -- 02:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to solve that with Help talk:Style#Better structuring, actually the other rules in Help:Style are not less important than that ;) -- Kynikos (talk) 09:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


Can someone have a look at some changes starting here? -- Karol 07:56, 27 September 2011 (EDT)


These changes to FVWM should be checked. At least the installation section has been messed up. -- Kynikos 18:04, 10 October 2011 (EDT)

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)

System recovery category

This edit adds some information to a category page, and it definitely doesn't belong there. I'm not sure what to do about it though. thestinger 17:06, 6 January 2012 (EST)

I decided to move the information to General Troubleshooting but it needs some work. thestinger 17:11, 6 January 2012 (EST)
Not a bad idea moving it there indeed. What about merging General Troubleshooting and Step By Step Debugging Guide now? And leave the merged article in Category:System administration only? -- Kynikos 07:29, 7 January 2012 (EST)
I'm not sure if we should merge them. I think adding a merge tag to the articles (we should really have the "merge to" and "merge from" templates like Wikipedia) and getting some more input would be the way to go. thestinger 13:08, 8 January 2012 (EST)
Ok, we can wait for more opinions :) Also this very report can be enough at the moment. I'm adding the Merge to/from idea to my todo list among the many others, of course if you want to implement it just go for it. -- Kynikos 09:02, 9 January 2012 (EST)
I vote for merging both into a Troubleshooting or Debugging article. -- pointone 09:55, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
My preferences: General Troubleshooting > Troubleshooting > Debugging > Step By Step Debugging Guide.
(BTW, for casual readers, the merge to/from idea was discarded in another discussion).
-- Kynikos 08:30, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
Related forum thread. -- Kynikos 11:59, 7 April 2012 (EDT)

New dependencies for pacman

Some parts of the wiki may need updating, e.g. [3] (the last one in the faq). -- Karol 08:39, 20 January 2012 (EST)

This sounds more like a request, I'd move it under Requests#pacman_4_in_.5Bcore.5D, as a subdiscussion, agreed? -- Kynikos 07:57, 21 January 2012 (EST)
There are actually quite a few dependencies that aren't mentioned, since a broken dependency of pacman would also break pacman (can see them all with pactree -l pacman | sort -u | cut -f 1 -d ' '). The packages that would need to be downloaded and extracted would vary depending on which partial upgrade was done. thestinger 15:19, 21 February 2012 (EST)

Pacman Rosetta

[4] No idea what eix -i does, but pacman -Qs doesn't search inside packages. Asked for clarification on authors' talk page. -- Karol 07:57, 26 January 2012 (EST)

Probably should read "within [the subset of] [locally] installed packages." I think this page could use some clean-up -- the section headings within the chart are not visible enough. Commands could be better organized. -- pointone 13:21, 28 January 2012 (EST)

Java SE 6

A new page was created with instructions on Java 6, but it could be a lot simpler due to the existence of jre6AUR and jre6-compatAUR (is jre7-compatAUR needed too?). thestinger 00:43, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

The author should probably be contacted, it's his first contribution, maybe he's just inexperienced? Alternatively he may have indeed some reasons not to use the AUR packages?
In any case he edited also Java, so if we delete/modify the page we should take those modifications into account.
-- Kynikos 08:06, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

btrfs stable?

Some days ago User:Graysky edited btrfs as it had been declared stable: whole history, in particular [5] and [6]; see also [7] and Talk:Btrfs#Troubleshooting is now outdated. Then, User:MajorTom has disputed those changes with [8], and I somewhat agree, as I've not been able to find any official statement about btrfs being declared stable. I'm contacting Graysky. -- Kynikos 17:22, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

Guys-I based my statement on the fact the oracle released this in ol6 and back ported it to ol5. Couple that with some emails from Avi miller and there you have it. Graysky 17:52, 14 April 2012 (EDT)
I know that btrfs' wiki isn't really up to date, but we're clearly colliding with [9], so I think, in order not to confuse Linux users (as our wiki usually ranks quite high in many google searches), you should undo MajorTom's edit and add some reference links to support the points in Btrfs#Recent Developments as he requested; can you do it? Thanks ^^ -- Kynikos 18:45, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

Move Category:Package development out of Category:Package management

So some days ago I moved " Category:Package development out of Category:Package management". But Vadmium disagree and reverted the change. So I open this discussion. I think "Development” is not a subset of “Management”. Development provide a tool, and Management activity use it. With the current Table of Contents, Package development belongs to Category:Development tree and Package management fit well into Category:System administration. Here I want to have inputs from others and especially from Vadmium. -- Fengchao (talk) 08:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

My thinking was if you are looking for “Package management” pages some of the “Development” pages may be relevant because developing packages is part of managing them. When I linked the categories together I was looking for what the wiki knew about extensions and wrappers for Pacman, and noticing the “Development” category would have helped my search. I think the time before I was trying to get my head around signed packages, and the most relevant page, Package signing (now DeveloperWiki:Package signing), was actually in the “development” category.
 Alternative suggestions: add a manual link from “Management” to “Development”, or even create a super-category like Category:Packaging or Category:Doing stuff with packages that covers them both, though I’m not sure of the best name. Vadmium (talk) 09:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC).
I think that Category:Package development and Category:Package management are indeed related, but not in a parent-child relationship, so IMO the best solution here is to link them reciprocally as it's been done between Category:Virtualization and Category:Emulators. -- Kynikos (talk) 13:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Kynikos. -- pointone (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Kynikos too. Related link is a better solution here. -- Fengchao (talk) 00:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Changed to use manual links each way. Seems a shame to not represent the relationship using the category system though, but it is good enough. Vadmium (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC).