Difference between revisions of "ArchWiki talk:Reports"

From ArchWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 129: Line 129:
:Is everybody ok with this change?
:Is everybody ok with this change?
:-- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 15:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
:-- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 15:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
::I don't feel strongly either way on this, but I guess it looks a bit cleaner without the # in general, while it can be meaningful to signify a same-page link. So +1. --[[User:Emiralle|Emiralle]] ([[User talk:Emiralle|talk]]) 04:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:43, 12 October 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.

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)

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)

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)

borderline spam/promotion

TuxLyn (contribs) has been adding links to a site they host. It appears that they have written the content though, so it's strange that they aren't contributing here but are instead linking to short snippets on their site.

However, it did seem like it was in good faith until I found a link to http://wiki.gotux.net/tutorials/software/aria2c on Aria2#Additional_Resources. The link resolves to a page with an advertisement ("Featured VPN Company"), so this really seems like a grab for page views.

Just something to keep an eye out for from now on. I've noticed similar stuff in the past too.

thestinger (talk) 05:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

We seem to have no problem with directing people to e.g. Allan's blog but I didn't know about the aria2c link. -- Karol (talk) 06:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
@karol: I don't think thestinger is criticising the fact that this user is linking to his wiki instead of posting the snippets directly here; I wouldn't mind either, provided the linked content is pertinent, useful and original (or at most modified respecting the original licence). Instead, I think he's using this fact to support the theory that TuxLyn is trying to attract users to his profit-making website (because of the ad), and IMVHO he may even be right, although I'm not accusing anybody of anything here, he may just be doing that to cover the expenses for the domain and the web space, which could even be considered legitimate.
Maybe we should elaborate some policy for links to web pages with advertisements, although I don't think it would be easy, since we link to various websites that display ads (of any kind) besides wiki.gotux.net (distrowatch.com just to mention one, but more could be found with e.g. a search like this), and I don't know if we can just do without them (and how practical it would be to get rid of all the existing links and check that no more are added).
-- Kynikos (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Linking to content published by individuals is fine, but it should add value to the articles. For example it wouldn't make sense to have a long tutorial on TCP/IP here when there are so many good resources to link to. However, most of the articles on the gotux wiki are just alternate versions of the content here, and they're out-of-reach when it comes to anyone else fixing inaccuracies and improving them.
I do think this is a good faith attempt to improve documentation, but since 95% of their edits made here have been to add links to a certain site, it seems like a way to "protect" content from collaborative editing, while still reaching the ArchWiki audience.
-- thestinger (talk) 06:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Since I don't think we'll be able to write general rules to define the usefulness of a linked page and the nature of ads it can/cannot display, we have to decide case by case. On the basis of your arguments, would you vote for the removal of all the links to wiki.gotux.net, only the aria2 one or none?
In my view, <<"protect[ing]" content from collaborative editing, while still reaching the ArchWiki audience>>, even if proved/provable, can be a legitimate behaviour, if done in a non-spamming way as he seems to be doing and provided the linked website doesn't have a commercial purpose. Does wiki.gotux.net have a commercial purpose? In http://wiki.gotux.net/about he says no, and actually I don't think he's displaying more ads than many other websites/blogs around, so for the moment I'd leave the link(s) there.
If we want to keep the situation under control for a while, here is also a quick link to all the links to *.gotux.net: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Special%3ALinkSearch&target=*.gotux.net
Another doubt I have, anyway, is whether he's allowed to display Arch's logo in http://wiki.gotux.net/tutorials/archlinux considering http://wiki.gotux.net/copyright and DeveloperWiki:TrademarkPolicy.
-- Kynikos (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Hehehehe, I wanted to post the same things: the links to *.gotux.net and the trademark issue. Good to see I was for once going the right way ;P
Wrt the trademark issue, I'm afraid I don't understand neither GoTux' nor Arch Linux' policy so I can't say yay or nay. I want to ask for a general clarification on the trademark issue (and f.e. what http://www.archarm.org/ is), but I will open a separate report for that or ask on the ML or at trademarks@archlinux.org. -- Karol (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I think the question is not "Whether he make money by adding link?". The more precise question should be
  • "Whether the information the site provide is valuable to ArchWiki ?" or
  • Is the link worth reading by reader of the Arch Wiki page?
If the answer is yes, I do no care how much money he get by providing valuable information to Arch users.
But sadly, I quickly went through most of the pages on the site. None of them meet the question above. I found even such instructions which are greatly discouraged or even forbiden. So the gotux links should be removed to protect our users from wrong information. -- Fengchao (talk) 02:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, honestly if those links were removed I don't think I'd miss them, however we all use different criteria for judging the value of a linked page, mine are probably just slightly more permissive than yours :)
I was also being carried away by my idea that if we link to a profit-making website, we are actually advertising it for free, but I recognise this is an exaggerated view of the situation, and more rationally I could even agree with you when you say that if somebody manages to make money by providing some kind of useful information, we shouldn't care too much.
About the fontconfig-infinality page, it's not linked from any of our articles, so this poses a further question: if a website contains a page with incompatible (in general) information, should we remove any reference to that website? Again, I wouldn't be so strict, but it's still only my opinion. Not mentioning the fact that I don't think using pacman -U for installing downloaded precompiled packages can be considered a "discouraged" or "forbidden" action, if that's what you were referring to (even though those particular packages are just the precompiled versions of 3 PKGBUILDs in the AUR).
-- Kynikos (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with most of your point. To keep focus of this discussion, check the link case by case:
  1. Remove http://wiki.gotux.net/tutorials/software/aria2c on Aria2#Additional_Resources. The page do not contain more information than our page.
  2. Remove both http://wiki.gotux.net/archlinux and "Xyne's Arch Linux Stuff" in Getting Involved#Community projects. When I first read the page long time ago, I wonder why the link is here. For Xyne's Arch Linux Stuff, if he is a TU then link in TU page is enough. The do not fit into "Community projects".
Please add any other links that should be removed. -- Fengchao (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, I don't support neither of the deletions:
  1. The page does contain an aria2.conf example while our article does not, in fact the http://rapidshare.com/files/12345678/aria2.example.rar link is broken.
  2. Getting Involved#Community projects starts with "Arch's community maintains many projects. Feel free to include yours!", so if we remove those links we have to replace that statement with a definition of a pertinent link; I think Arch's community is also you, me, Xyne, TuxLyn and many other people using and contributing to Arch, so I think those links do suit the "Community projects" section.
Since I recognise I could be in the minority here, I'll start some polls, otherwise this discussion will last forever :)
-- Kynikos (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, I did not means they do not contribute. I just do not think the wiki is "a Project". I check xyne's site again and find the projects page. The link in Getting Involved#Community projects is update to the project page. So it can stay there.
The problem of http://wiki.gotux.net is: Most of the information is duplication of Arch Wiki page, with just a little small improvement there. Currently, there is discussion in , thestinger and me are try to convince him to contribute to Arch Wiki instead of maintain a seperate wiki site. We can wait for some time for the result. -- Fengchao (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Also TuxLyn's link in Getting Involved should be updated, but I'm not doing it because I guess you two are waiting for TuxLyn himself to fix it, right? Let's see what happens then ;) -- Kynikos (talk) 13:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


Only vote here with Yes -- ~~~~ or No -- ~~~~. Post comments to the discussion above (not required for voting), add more polls on this topic if you like.

Remove the aria2 link?

No -- Kynikos (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Reformating section links to hide the anchor symbol

According to Help:Editing#Links_to_sections_of_a_document, we shouldn't do that, but Pierre did. Or is the guideline referring only to linking to a section within the same page? -- Karol (talk) 10:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I think there's no benefit in keeping the # symbol in cross-page links, so I've modified the recommendation: [3]; this implies [4].
Is everybody ok with this change?
-- Kynikos (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't feel strongly either way on this, but I guess it looks a bit cleaner without the # in general, while it can be meaningful to signify a same-page link. So +1. --Emiralle (talk) 04:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)