Talk:Code of conduct
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.
- 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)
- 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)
I think it would be a good idea to suggest not pinging someone without subject:
- Pretty much Code_of_conduct#No_power-posting.2Fempty_posts but for IRC -- Alad (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Clarification needed for 3rd party installers
Arch Linux distribution support *only* should at the very least use or instead of , and to note that any of these factors already constitutes it as not supported:
- These distributions often use different packages, package versions, repositories or make custom system configurations silently
It may be worth restating directly that 3rd party installers are not supported as well as derivative distributions:
- Arch-based distributions and unofficial Arch Linux installers have their own support forums; their users should be actively encouraged to seek support there.
- The whole "Arch Linux installers" thing is nonsense, it should not be used on this page. There is one and only one live system capable of installing Arch Linux. If they use different live system for installation, they are not installing Arch, regardless of what the 3rd party developers claim. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry for triggering you ;) Maybe instead of using Arch-based distributions term we just state that only installations supported are installations using official installation media and using Installation guide process? That would eliminate both Arch-based distributions and different 3rd-party installers (that can be used by cloning their repo from github on official live system). -- Svito (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- How about separating category content into Installation methods article and point out their support status? I don't like how it is both category and general article.
- I am sure bringing clarity to CoC section will benefit anyone who does not want to explain over and over and argue what is supported and what is not in Arch Linux community, be it forums, IRC or wiki.
- We can't reasonably blacklist 3rd-party installers without admitting they do exist or install something that resembles Arch(but is not Arch). I learned about the one and only proper Arch Linux installation way from our vocal self-protecting community, not because I have read this section which requires familiarity with implication - it is reasonable to assume some may need to look up the word, let alone apply this concept while reading.
- Maybe this is too much effort for no gain and I'm concerned with idiots. But I try to be optimistic in between depressions ;) -- Svito (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- Whenever someone registers on the forums you get a big warning box (and nothing else) that only Arch and no installers, Manajaro, Antergos whatever are supported. People still file dozens of requests for Debian, Hannah Montanna Linux and TempleOS on the forums on a daily basis. As such, I don't see how making the code of conduct more complicated would improve anything on this regard.
- I strongly dislike some support status page for installation methods. That implies that fully unsupported methods like random user scripts or Microsoft's WSL have a legitimate place on this wiki -- without requiring any further discussion why they should, as long as they have some "unsupported" status on an hypothetical installation methods page. -- Alad (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't want to complicate CoC, FWIW having better Installation methods(alternatively Arch Linux installation) page would give us extra space to explain what is considered Arch Linux installation(s) and what is not without complicating Arch Linux or obscuring it in talk pages.Never mind this. I should do my homework here and display what I mean beforehand. -- Svito (talk) 01:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)