From ArchWiki
Revision as of 14:18, 25 September 2012 by Conley (Talk | contribs) (Should there be this much tutorial content?: links to other resources for consideration)

Jump to: navigation, search

Advanced vim usage?

Could a wise vim wizard share with us the art of advanced vim usage using plugins and commands not explained in this article? --Svenstaro 22:45, 19 August 2009 (EDT)

I am not a wizard, but regardless, one of the things to do is simply peruse the quickref and try to think of when such and such command or keystroke could be useful. Read the associated documentation for those you are interested in. See also Jonathan McPherson's article on efficient editing as well as Bram Moolenar's version. --khne522 Forgot to sign at the moment of posting.


"This is the basic usage on how to use vim" is a very awkward sentece. I've changed it.

Nod. How it is put now describes it better. --Gen2ly 15:39, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

256 Colorschemes

There should be a comment somewhere in the vimrc example pointing out that 256 colors load properlly if the colorscheme sentence on the vimrc is at the bottom of the file

vim != vi

If vi is going to redirect here, we at least need something to distinguish these. | Emiralle 09:47, 11 October 2011 (EDT)

Well, the intro already says "Vim is an advanced text editor that seeks to provide the power of the de-facto UNIX editor ‘vi’, with a more complete feature set." but if you want to add more it's a welcome thing :) -- Kynikos 16:01, 12 October 2011 (EDT)


In the Spell Check section the infromation are incomplete, now the spell check for Vim are in the repository so I think that the section need to be updated, I was thinking someting like that:

Only English language dictionaries are installed by default, more can be found in the [extra] reopository:

# pacman -Ss vim-spell

to get the list of available languages,

# pacman -S vim-spell-xy

where xy are the language of your choice.

The spell check files can also be found at the vim ftp archive. After downloading the spl files for the given language (e.g. hu.cp1250.spl, hu.iso-8859-2.spl and/or hu.utf-8.spl for Hungarian) into ~/.vim/spell, run:

:setlocal spell spelllang=LL

This is just a sample, not fully formatted.Maveloth 08:32, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

Looks good, you can update the section. -- Kynikos 07:14, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
Done, I also suggest to use the keypress template for this page, I'm going to translate it for the Italian wiki, so if you think it is correct I can do it. -- Maveloth 13:51, 17 October 2011 (EDT)
Well, having all keys marked with Template:Keypress is better than highlighting them in bold, so you can change them. Nonetheless, I don't know if Keypress itself will be involved in the template simplification currently under discussion, and thus redirected to a simpler template, but that's another story. -- Kynikos 05:41, 18 October 2011 (EDT)
The spell checking addition was reverted only because of how Template:Keypress looked at that time, now I've restored it and this discussion can be closed. -- Kynikos 07:43, 5 March 2012 (EST)

Should there be this much tutorial content?

The usage section is very large, and not very useful, in my opinion. If users are looking for learning resources, vimtutor would do a much better job. I think usage should be a short overview of things that focuses on more abstract things, such as how modal editing works. Conley (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

My reply would be a simple +1 (also because of Help:Style#Hypertext metaphor), but the same observation can be done for Emacs, so we can either remove the usage sections from both articles or none.
I don't think it's the ArchWiki's duty to teach how to use Vim or Emacs, there are innumerable guides, tutorials, cheat sheets... out there for both applications, not counting their official documentation. I don't think either that people really come to the ArchWiki to learn how to use those programs.
On the other hand, I recognise that a lot of effort has been put to write those sections, and just chucking them out like that would make me a little sorry ^^
More opinions?
-- Kynikos (talk) 12:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
The Emacs page was re-written and structured to be consistent with the Vim page; any structure change should be reflected in both pages. I don't want to speculate why people do and don't come to the ArchWiki. The standard of documentation on these pages is quite good and I wouldn't like to see them removed just for the sake of it. However, if other pages can be found which provide an equivalent (or better) resource, then I'm all for it.
--Chpln (talk) 09:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
This documentation is hard for me to read; my eyes just skim right past it. I think it may be the typography that's causing issues, but at any rate, I feel that there are many better resources. There's the wonderful vimtutor and the help documents both built into vim. Also, here are a few sites I found from a quick search: (You have to pay if you want the entire game)
Conley (talk)