ArchWiki talk:Reports

From ArchWiki
Revision as of 20:58, 27 March 2014 by Kynikos (talk | contribs) (Beginners' guide/Installation: re)
Jump to: navigation, search

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)

Pacnew_and_Pacsave_Files report

Original quick report:

[3]: what was wrong with the old script that was replaced?

I think the edit in question added just some error-checking and dependency-checking. As pacnew and pacidff files are often edited as root or with sudo, the script does additional check for that. I don't think it's a questionable edit. -- Karol (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Honestly the only parts of the new script that I like are the diffed variable that makes it easier to change it to the preferred merge tool, and the pacsave alert at the end. About the rest, I think that always checking for the availability of the required programs (~1/3 of the script) is complete overkill for such a little script: it's uselessly run every time while it could be much more Simply left to the user, who is supposed to know what applications (s)he has installed; I think mentioning the required packages in the section intro would be more appropriate. Then there's the problem of replacing gksudo with plain sudo, which IIRC at least until some time ago was a discouraged practice. -- Kynikos (talk) 05:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

"Issue" -> "problem" updates

I don't know what to think about User:Notasynonym, every contribution of this user (fortunately they are not that many) is just a replacement of "issue" with "problem" (and modifications for plural). Are those valid edits? I find it rather uncomfortable... -- Lahwaacz (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a native English speaker, my only guess is that he's doing it because "problem" is a more specific word, while "issue" can have other meanings. Maybe we can ask him? -- Kynikos (talk) 05:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
The name of the account suggests that the propaganda is "issue" and "problem" are not synonyms, which I just can't accept - even Github has issue pages. I think that in IT it cannot be confused with the other meanings. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 08:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I've invited him to join this discussion. However I'd appreciate if also a third-party native English speaker shared his/her feelings about this issue... problem... matter! -- Kynikos (talk) 07:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm a native English speaker. "issue" and "problem" are only synonyms in certain contexts. As a general rule of thumb, every "problem" is an "issue", but not every "issue" is a "problem".
Using User:Lahwaacz's GitHub example, GitHub chose the proper word for their system because GitHub's issue tracker is for reporting bugs, requesting new features, logging pull requests, asking general questions, etc. Of those, only bug reports are both "problems" and "issues"; the rest are simply "issues".
I skimmed over a couple of User:Notasynonym edit's. Of those I checked, they seem okay because the instances where he changed "issue" to "problem" are in the context of bugs or troubleshooting problems. I would have a major problem (hehe) with anyone blindly doing a search-and-replace of "issue" to "problem", but it does not appear that he is doing this.
Hope this helps!
-- Jstjohn (talk) 02:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Jstjohn, I too think that those edits are acceptable. When patrolling them, I didn't pay attention to User:Notasynonym's username, which is probably the main reason that has made Lahwaacz suspicious: using "propaganda" usernames is indeed common practice among trolls, and still I don't understand why this user is using a separate account for this kind of edits, as if he thought himself they could generate criticism. -- Kynikos (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Beginners' guide/Installation

Original report:

Beginners%27_Guide%2FInstallation -- 2013-04-06 15:11:45 -- content -- All this could probably be merged to Partitioning, UEFI, GPT... Also considering the recent efforts to move information out of the Beginners' guide to specific articles

The reported edits were superseded: [4] -- does the argument still stand? Or should this be discussed in Talk:Beginners' guide?

-- Lahwaacz (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that a basic guide to partition your disk should be in the Beginners' guide. There are a few issues with the current section, in my opinion:
  • We should try to unify the instructions for both partition table types (GPT and MBR). This would be very easy if we use the same program for both types. fdisk can handle both, but when I asked last time, it apparently wasn't stable enough. I have been using it for the last months on GPT disks, and haven't had any problems. We need an analysis of the stability of fdisk with GPT partitioning.
  • All Windows (8)-quirks should be replaced with a single-line note to a separate article.
  • Remove anything related to encryption, RAID, or other fancy stuff. That doesn't belong in a guide for beginners.
I think that the first one will simplify the guide the most, but it is also the most controversial.
While thinking about it, it might be better to continue the discussion at Talk:Beginners' guide. :)
--Lonaowna (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, yes, Talk:Beginners' guide is more appropriate for this. I agree with Lonaowna's points 2 and 3, and I don't have any news about the stability of (c)gdisk (point 1). Of course in a dream world I'd be even more radical, in light of my position in Talk:Beginners'_Guide#Unification. -- Kynikos (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)