Difference between revisions of "Talk:GNOME tips"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Updating: Sorry stefanwilkens, could you describe here your decision and reasons to withdraw, for future reference?)
(Updating: re)
(3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 14: Line 14:
 
::::::: A similar discussion is ongoing on [[Talk:GNOME]], do drop by if you have comments or concerns. This is why I'm asking for input before I'm doing the actual work.--[[User:Stefanwilkens|stefanwilkens]] 18:02, 18 January 2012 (EST)
 
::::::: A similar discussion is ongoing on [[Talk:GNOME]], do drop by if you have comments or concerns. This is why I'm asking for input before I'm doing the actual work.--[[User:Stefanwilkens|stefanwilkens]] 18:02, 18 January 2012 (EST)
 
::::::::Managing to involve some [[MATE]] editors would be the best solution indeed. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] 12:28, 19 January 2012 (EST)
 
::::::::Managing to involve some [[MATE]] editors would be the best solution indeed. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] 12:28, 19 January 2012 (EST)
::::::: Sorry stefanwilkens, could you describe here your decision and reasons to withdraw, for future reference?
+
::::::: Sorry stefanwilkens, could you describe here your decision and reasons to withdraw, for future reference? -- [[User:Corvinus|Corvinus]] 08:07, 2 February 2012 (EST)
 +
::::::::He has even disabled the email contact for his ArchWiki account... Of course if it's a personal decision there's nothing we can do, but you know, Stefanwilkens, that even if you have found some opposition to your project (contacting you in private for that sounds a bit vile, however I can't judge the situation without knowing the facts more in depth), you also had other users, including me, who were publicly suppporting it. I hope you'll come back one day, [[GNOME]] and the whole ArchWiki need organized and eager users like you :) -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] 09:16, 2 February 2012 (EST)
 +
::::::::: A few users strongly opposed (500+ words) the removal of outdated information, one went as far to say I would be destroying the gnome legacy by removing gnome 2.x instructions from our Wiki. I am having to move to a stable release distro anyway, those e-mail seemed as good a reason as any to drop this and make the move. Perhaps my removal of this discussion was a little hasty, I merely meant to indicate that I would not be going through with it. --[[User:Stefanwilkens|stefanwilkens]] 11:24, 2 February 2012 (EST)
 +
::::::::::Of course I respect your choice, however discussions should be public, not private, I don't think there's nothing to hide or to be ashamed of, so you should have invited them to discuss openly from the beginning. As far as I'm concerned, private discussions shouldn't have any influence on the wiki.
 +
::::::::::In any case, I want to make clear that this article is about GNOME 3, so GNOME 2 information here is out of place, and this is a fact. For GNOME 2 info there's [[MATE]], or [[GNOME 2]] if we really want to resurrect it, considering that that version is no longer supported neither by Arch nor by GNOME itself.
 +
::::::::::-- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] 12:39, 2 February 2012 (EST)

Revision as of 17:39, 2 February 2012

Updating

There is a lot of gnome 2.x information here, I would like to start removing that information and make this article relate to gnome 3.x only.

Given the nature of our distro, I see no point in maintaining documentation on outdated software. Comments? --stefanwilkens 11:32, 15 January 2012 (EST)

There's no point in really maintaining it, but also no need to delete this info. This wiki is useful for users of many distros (and OSes, for that matter), so it would be more humane to somehow isolate it, in separate sections or a separate article as necessary. -- Corvinus 12:00, 15 January 2012 (EST)
Yes, please for now just isolate the Gnome legacy information in a separate section at the bottom of the page. Actually we did have a GNOME 2 article that was split when GNOME 3 was moved to GNOME, but GNOME 2 was later deleted since GNOME 2 is no longer supported by Arch. Nonetheless, I really don't know if some of the outdated tips here can somehow apply for example to MATE, I'd like to read the opinions of more informed users. -- Kynikos 15:52, 16 January 2012 (EST)
Now this is sad, what is the sence of isolating it, if it will be deleted because "not supported by Arch"? Why not just leave note at the top of such pages and leave them be? -- Corvinus 06:24, 17 January 2012 (EST)
I asked to isolate the outdated tips (well you did first in your previous reply) right because it's not decided yet whether to delete them or not. What is sure is that they don't belong here since this page is related to GNOME, meaning GNOME 3. After they have been isolated, we can move them to a GNOME Legacy or GNOME 2 Tips article, or, as I said, to a MATE Tips article, if they apply there; otherwise they should be deleted since there's no point in keeping them here. -- Kynikos 15:16, 17 January 2012 (EST)
I think you misunderstood me, I agreed that it should be isolated, but argued for not deleting it afterwards (which would negate any sense of isolating). I think that the resulting articles or sections should be marked outdated (with note on top) and left to be.
Yeah probably I slightly misunderstood your first sentence :P We agree on moving the outdated tips in a separate article, but let's do that once they'll be all grouped in the isolated section. I don't think this should make Stefanwilkens' work more difficult, let's wait for his opinion. -- Kynikos 10:43, 18 January 2012 (EST)
I'll group legacy information at the bottom of this article so that others can judge their relevance to MATE. I do however feel that old information that is no longer valid should be removed or given a section of its own. Outdated and non-relevant information is bad information, especially considering that upstream has dropped support for 2.xx and has brought out 2 successive stable releases.
I'll wait a bit longer before I start, once I do I'll also start work on the main GNOME article. Legacy information exists there too. I intend to drop that from the article if it has no relevance to GNOME 3.x. I will poke the editors of the MATE article so they can review the current state of both articles so that they can extract useful information. Is this acceptable?
If not then a GNOME Legacy article should be started by those looking to maintain such information, but I would think it wiser to put that effort into maintaining MATE or other non-legacy projects.
A similar discussion is ongoing on Talk:GNOME, do drop by if you have comments or concerns. This is why I'm asking for input before I'm doing the actual work.--stefanwilkens 18:02, 18 January 2012 (EST)
Managing to involve some MATE editors would be the best solution indeed. -- Kynikos 12:28, 19 January 2012 (EST)
Sorry stefanwilkens, could you describe here your decision and reasons to withdraw, for future reference? -- Corvinus 08:07, 2 February 2012 (EST)
He has even disabled the email contact for his ArchWiki account... Of course if it's a personal decision there's nothing we can do, but you know, Stefanwilkens, that even if you have found some opposition to your project (contacting you in private for that sounds a bit vile, however I can't judge the situation without knowing the facts more in depth), you also had other users, including me, who were publicly suppporting it. I hope you'll come back one day, GNOME and the whole ArchWiki need organized and eager users like you :) -- Kynikos 09:16, 2 February 2012 (EST)
A few users strongly opposed (500+ words) the removal of outdated information, one went as far to say I would be destroying the gnome legacy by removing gnome 2.x instructions from our Wiki. I am having to move to a stable release distro anyway, those e-mail seemed as good a reason as any to drop this and make the move. Perhaps my removal of this discussion was a little hasty, I merely meant to indicate that I would not be going through with it. --stefanwilkens 11:24, 2 February 2012 (EST)
Of course I respect your choice, however discussions should be public, not private, I don't think there's nothing to hide or to be ashamed of, so you should have invited them to discuss openly from the beginning. As far as I'm concerned, private discussions shouldn't have any influence on the wiki.
In any case, I want to make clear that this article is about GNOME 3, so GNOME 2 information here is out of place, and this is a fact. For GNOME 2 info there's MATE, or GNOME 2 if we really want to resurrect it, considering that that version is no longer supported neither by Arch nor by GNOME itself.
-- Kynikos 12:39, 2 February 2012 (EST)