Talk:IRC channel

From ArchWiki
Revision as of 11:01, 23 March 2016 by Indigo (talk | contribs) (#archlinux guidelines: re, close)
Jump to: navigation, search


I think IRC channel and IRC channels are too similar — and thus confusing — titles, what do people think of renaming them to respectively "Official IRC channel" and "Unofficial IRC channels"? — Kynikos (talk) 03:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, it is very confusing. Ideally, I wanted to rename "IRC channel" to "IRC", describing how to use IRC itself and available clients; and do not rename page "IRC channels", but move there info about all (official + unofficial) channels.
I was thinking about your variant too. If you do not agree with my variant, then I want say, that renaming with your variant is better anyway than leaving titles as now. — Agent0 (talk|contribs) 11:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I've just remembered we discussed much of this in IRC channel and IRC channels. We can still rename IRC channels to Unofficial IRC channels though.
I'm not sure about a generic IRC page (currently the title redirects to IRC channel), there are already many guides online; on the other hand, we are keeping articles like Git, and opposing an article about IRC usage would be incoherent IMO. For this reason I'm not going to oppose the idea, nor endorse it, so if nobody brings objections here, I suppose you can go ahead. You may even use IRC Collaborative Debugging as a starting point.
Kynikos (talk) 15:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
We could do a subpage, e.g IRC channel/Listing. Messy solution.
I also wouldn't oppose initiating an IRC article, but focusing on Arch-related aspects and conventions, instead of yet another guide as you say. It would inevitably duplicate IRC channel though. -- Alad (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

#archlinux guidelines

I would like to suggest replacing or adding to the 'Smart Questions' link a superbly well written and very concise article on the 'Litany of Reporting' . It is much shorter (accessible) and covers in a most definite way the issue of problem reporting. To put it in terms of the Litany:

"What do I want", "To help people ask useful questions"

"What did you try", "Giving the 'Smart Questions' link"

"What was the result and how does this differ from your expectations". "People too often interpret 'Smart Questions' as some kind of insult (let's face it, it's a really bad title) and or don't bother with it because it's so long (TL;DR)"

D garbage (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Nice indeed as a tl;dr, yeah. Not all questions are problem reports (thankfully:), so I would add it. E.g. change
7. Ask smart questions. It is easier for us to help you when you ask good/smart questions.
7. Please follow the standard litany when giving a problem report. It is easier for us to help you when you ask good/smart questions.
--Indigo (talk) 08:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
It's done: [1] Cheers & closing. --Indigo (talk) 11:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)