Difference between revisions of "Talk:Code of conduct"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Added another suggested bullet for necrobumping guidance)
(Improve old threads / necrobumping guidance: Accepted, with variations)
Line 37: Line 37:
--[[User:Michaelmcandrew|Michaelmcandrew]] ([[User talk:Michaelmcandrew|talk]]) 08:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
--[[User:Michaelmcandrew|Michaelmcandrew]] ([[User talk:Michaelmcandrew|talk]]) 08:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
: Thanks. Updated to reflect your suggestions. [[User:Jasonwryan|Jasonwryan]] ([[User talk:Jasonwryan|talk]]) 17:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:16, 15 November 2017

Maybe make the section "correct" more clear

I'd like to see a clearer title for that section and add a little more on how users should effectively ask for help and report issues. ie they need to state the whole problem and what they have already tried as well as logs and error messages. how to report and ask smart questions are both great links.

Maybe "don't ask to ask" could also be added, as in, "can someone help me? My Arch install is broken!" type of messages.Meskarune (talk) 01:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the ask smart questions is such a great link to give people. It's good for understanding our culture but it's not good for smooth relations with people asking questions. However, I do think how to report should be added; it's concise and to the point without risking antagonizing the person with a question. MacGyver (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe https://askubuntu.com/help/how-to-ask would be a better link to use. It is shorter, nicer and clearer than ESR's doc. Meskarune (talk) 03:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree re. ESR. It is an exemplary exposition of the critical thinking required to effectively engage with a technical audience. I have no issues with people finding it difficult; this isn't a distro like Ubuntu where popularity is a consideration. Our focus is on contribution, so a degree of proficiency, or the desire to attain proficiency, is a prerequisite. Reading Smart Questions is a pretty good gauge of that willingness. Jasonwryan (talk) 06:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

[url] and [img] after May’s CoC rebuild

At the start of this year I’ve suggested an addition to the forum CoC regarding posting images. The policy was to post also URLs (along with the [img]) and landed somewhere near policies on fullscreen screenshots. It seems that during the May’s CoC rebuild the two policies got mixed into a single sentence indicating to post only URLs with image size being the condition to trigger that:

Do not post full screen pictures; use links to the images instead, optionally with thumbnails

— Jasonwryan

This no longer makes sense in the context of the original premises, which were about readers’ convenience.

Should this be fixed or left as-is (keeping the use of [url] for big pictures only)? --Mpan (talk) 06:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

It does give the option "with thumbnails"; ie., if you have to post an image, only post the thumbnail size. Is that not sufficiently clear? Jasonwryan (talk) 06:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Improve old threads / necrobumping guidance

Some suggested improvements to the old threads / necrobumping guidance page, based on this thread: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=231648

1) Rewrite first para as follows:

Do your part to keep the forums tidy. Posting in old threads, or "necrobumping" is generally discouraged in the technical issue and assistance subforums, since it can create disjointed "zombie" posts that mix outdated information with posts reflecting more current circumstances. Furthermore, technical support threads should remain succinct, and multiple pages are to be avoided if possible.

2) Remove the bold from the Rules of thumb since it makes it look like a heading

3) An another couple of bullets:

  • If you are thinking about necrobumping with a solution to an unsolved thread, consider whether adding your new information to the wiki would be more appropriate.
  • If you start a new thread, consider telling the moderators that you have done so, to give them the opportunity to close the old thread.

--Michaelmcandrew (talk) 08:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Updated to reflect your suggestions. Jasonwryan (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)