Difference between revisions of "User talk:Kynikos"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Articles Categories)
(Articles Categories: re)
Line 30: Line 30:
 
:We were discussing this on your talk page, I have obviously answered there, as you should have expected. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] 08:54, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
 
:We were discussing this on your talk page, I have obviously answered there, as you should have expected. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] 08:54, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
 
::I have expected you will first update the discussion and only then revert my change. [[User:Aroko|Aroko]] 10:06, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
 
::I have expected you will first update the discussion and only then revert my change. [[User:Aroko|Aroko]] 10:06, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
:::You were the first one to uncategorize [[Commandline Tools]] without discussing in the first place. You are playing with fire. And sign your edits. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] 09:05, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
+
:::You were the first one to uncategorize [[Commandline Tools]] without discussing in the first place. You are playing with fire. And sign your edits (Edit: signed after this reply). -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] 09:05, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
 
::::So if you are telling me that an article being categorized somehow is better then an uncategorized article at all I can live with this. But I cannot live with your warnings about some fire while I haven't broken any existing official guidelines. Be there a rule articles ''must'' be categorized I will be first one to acknowledge my ignorance. So it seems a good idea to me to list such rules somewhere. It would be even better if articles can be checked against some of them on save page event. [[User:Aroko|Aroko]] 10:06, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
 
::::So if you are telling me that an article being categorized somehow is better then an uncategorized article at all I can live with this. But I cannot live with your warnings about some fire while I haven't broken any existing official guidelines. Be there a rule articles ''must'' be categorized I will be first one to acknowledge my ignorance. So it seems a good idea to me to list such rules somewhere. It would be even better if articles can be checked against some of them on save page event. [[User:Aroko|Aroko]] 10:06, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
 +
:::::"So if you are telling me that an article being categorized somehow is better then an uncategorized article at all I can live with this" - That is what we have done until now, you should have asked first, being a newcomer, is it possible that it is so hard to understand?
 +
:::::"Be there a rule articles must be categorized I will be first one to acknowledge my ignorance." - Take a look at [[Help:Style]] to read the official guidelines that will soon be enforced throughout the wiki. It is not a matter of ignorance, but of respect: what would happen if all newcomers came and edited the articles the way they want, just like you have done? I will tell you: it would be a total devastating mess. Fortunately the vast majority of users are different from you, and show much more respect for more experienced users, and are much more cautious especially in their first edits.
 +
:::::"It would be even better if articles can be checked against some of them on save page event" - No it is not possible with this wiki engine.
 +
:::::-- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] 10:38, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

Revision as of 14:38, 13 October 2011

Feel free to leave here your comments on my edits or anything else you want to talk about: I'll reply as soon as I can!

Note: Please, add new discussions at the bottom, and with a proper title: I'll take care of removing old discussions once they are exhausted.

Random formatting ideas

Xyne-related page edits after Powerpill, Bauerbill... discontinuation

"pacman -S foo" vs "pacman -Syu foo"

What about today's contributions from this user? Everywhere in the wiki it's used "-S" alone: I think people already know that they should update the system before installing packages, so writing "pacman -Syu package" is incoherent and unnecessarily complicated. Revert? -- Kynikos 15:39, 5 April 2011 (EDT)

I wanted to ask you about this too :-) Using the "good, bad, ugly" convention: '-Sy foo' is bad, '-Syu foo' seems ugly in this situation and '-S foo' is good.
Ledti did fix it a bit but you can make it even better by removing the unnecessary elements, something he probably didn't think of.
I suggest changing those 'Syu' to '-S' so it's not a revert but an edit. -- Karol 16:08, 5 April 2011 (EDT)
I disagree: support for Template:Codeline was only recently added. I think all wiki articles should be updated such that the first or primary installation line uses -Syu rather than just -S. Yes, people should know to update first, but users running outdated systems is invariably one of the most common causes of trouble. -- pointone 16:19, 5 April 2011 (EDT)
So this would be a "sneaky" way to update distracted users' systems? :) Don't get me wrong, I perfectly understand, I'm not criticizing, it's just I don't think it is so KISS... If you make this new procedure official, should we start an edit campaign to change all -S into -Syu? -- Kynikos 16:32, 5 April 2011 (EDT)
I don't think this is something that needs to be changed for the sake of change... I've only made it if I happen to be editing a page for another reason (and if I remember!) I won't make this "official" without a larger discussion. -- pointone 16:47, 5 April 2011 (EDT)
How do we start that "larger discussion"? IIRC there already was one on the ML around the time '-Syu foo' was introduced. I don't remember if '-Syu foo' vs. '-S foo' have been discussed too, I'll try to find it. -- Karol 16:56, 5 April 2011 (EDT)
It could be started on the forum: I would be interested in discussing and reaching an official decision, otherwise the wiki will start to have some articles with -S, and others with -Syu, and that will make things even messier, instead of solving problems. -- Kynikos 17:04, 5 April 2011 (EDT)
Just an example of how I would like it to be, only as a reminder for a future larger discussion. -- Kynikos 10:55, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

Flattening of the category tree

Would you be okay with the removal of Category:System administration (English) and Category:Desktop user's guide (English) as proposed here? I know you voiced your opposition to flattening in general, but I don't plan on removing the Software/Hardware categories because I think those are useful (even if they overlap a lot). thestinger 13:49, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

Actually, I think simply merging Desktop user's guide into System administration might be a good first step - flattening it will clutter the top-level English category a lot. thestinger 15:58, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
I'm perfectly fine with merging those categories, please do it, you're on a roll these days, I'm going crazy in the recent changes XD
I'm basically against a systematic flattening of the tree, I mean just done for the sake of it, or being the flattening itself the main purpose of the restructuring, but when there's a rational justification it's a good thing, like in this case.
-- Kynikos 05:59, 8 September 2011 (EDT)

Articles Categories

So I have explained to you why I have removed that article from the category command shells. Why do you think assigning an article to (almost) random category will help? Aroko 08:31, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

We were discussing this on your talk page, I have obviously answered there, as you should have expected. -- Kynikos 08:54, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
I have expected you will first update the discussion and only then revert my change. Aroko 10:06, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
You were the first one to uncategorize Commandline Tools without discussing in the first place. You are playing with fire. And sign your edits (Edit: signed after this reply). -- Kynikos 09:05, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
So if you are telling me that an article being categorized somehow is better then an uncategorized article at all I can live with this. But I cannot live with your warnings about some fire while I haven't broken any existing official guidelines. Be there a rule articles must be categorized I will be first one to acknowledge my ignorance. So it seems a good idea to me to list such rules somewhere. It would be even better if articles can be checked against some of them on save page event. Aroko 10:06, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
"So if you are telling me that an article being categorized somehow is better then an uncategorized article at all I can live with this" - That is what we have done until now, you should have asked first, being a newcomer, is it possible that it is so hard to understand?
"Be there a rule articles must be categorized I will be first one to acknowledge my ignorance." - Take a look at Help:Style to read the official guidelines that will soon be enforced throughout the wiki. It is not a matter of ignorance, but of respect: what would happen if all newcomers came and edited the articles the way they want, just like you have done? I will tell you: it would be a total devastating mess. Fortunately the vast majority of users are different from you, and show much more respect for more experienced users, and are much more cautious especially in their first edits.
"It would be even better if articles can be checked against some of them on save page event" - No it is not possible with this wiki engine.
-- Kynikos 10:38, 13 October 2011 (EDT)