ArchWiki talk:Contributing

History clarity

about ArchWiki:Contributing#Always properly use the edit summary note to ease searchability and history readability

• auto summary the section title by clicking it's [Edit] button instead of the Edit on top of the page
• in case of title/section rename also add to summary (after the above): rename [[#section title]] to [[#new section title]]

― Ubone (talk) 05:40, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

That's a good idea but I prefer the comment syntax over regular section links in edit summaries. Draft:

When editing a section use its [Edit] link to automatically prefix /* Section name */ to the edit summary. The text between /* and */ becomes a section link in the edit summary. You can also use this syntax to make your edit summary more accessible, e.g. rename /* Install */ to standard /* Installation */.

--Larivact (talk) 06:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The text between /* and */ becomes a section link

it... does? ― Ubone (talk) 07:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

oh, that little arrow... never knew it was clickable, it's a bit hardly visible tho ― Ubone (talk) 07:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

It would keep summaries cleaner if /* */ remains only as auto summary for the section being edited. To correct my initial example: /* (auto) section title */ rename to [[#new section title]]. I wouldn't use /* */ simply because it's easier for me to press [ or ] than shift-8 for * ― Ubone (talk) 07:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

A problem with /* */ is that if there's a space after it, it adds a colon. That makes it look weird if it's in the middle of a sentence. -- nl6720 (talk) 07:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Good points, everybody. Updated draft:

To edit a section use its [Edit] link to automatically prefix /* Section name */ to the edit summary. When mentioning section names, link them using [[#Section links]]. Example: /* Install */ rename to standard [[#Installation]].

--Larivact (talk) 08:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I would drop standard because while being a common mistake is not the point of the example. ― Ubone (talk) 08:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I included it because the ideal edit summary contains a reason. --Larivact (talk) 08:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

[[#Section links]] should be [[#Section name]] to avoid confusion and possibly point to links syntax with something like 'see #Resources for Help:Editing' --Ubone (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The look of /* Section name */ has changed since this discussion started. Instead of just an arrow, now the whole text is a link. Since some people seem to confuse it with some sort of comment syntax, I tried explaining what it is in Special:Diff/715163. -- nl6720 (talk) 11:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Can you let me know if this article can be hosted here ?

Hello everyone, I am a new user on the Wiki, and I am regularly asked on community sites how I proceeded to install a chroot in SteamOS, which is the operating system of the Steam Deck, which is an Arch Linux in read-only mode.

That is to say that the average user can only install applications available under Discovery.

I therefore propose to create a detailed page on all the steps to follow from A to Z to install a chroot in your home and thus be able to access the entire Arch Linux application under SteamOS, while maintaining the security of read-only mode.

The article should address:

• creating a minimalist chroot without the kernel or display dependencies
• configuring the arch linux repositories
• automatically mounting the necessary paths
• install apps
• creating desktop icons
• creating udev rules to run chrooted apps in gaming mode

I hesitated for a long time where to post this information and tonight I thought that it could fit perfectly into the Arch Wiki given that SteamOS is Arch Linux.

But I prefer to ask your opinion beforehand because I'm relatively new, but I'm an AUR maintainer and I work as a engineer developer so I'm pretty alert about collaboration.

Let me know what do you think if any experienced member is reading this.

--class101 (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi there! When discussed in the past, the agreed-upon stance on SteamOS content is that it generally doesn't belong in the main wiki. If you wanted to host it here, you would probably need to create it as a subpage under your user page, and then have it reviewed for inclusion in the main wiki. The thing is, even putting aside the SteamOS component, pages that are wholly dedicated to being a guide for a specific task are uncommon. Examples I could think of are PCI passthrough via OVMF and the installation pages within Category:Installation process. -- CodingKoopa (talk) 04:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Add hint how to apply Who Wrote This functionality

Hi. I would like to add the following section to the article. Under the ArchWiki:Contributing#Improving section, with title "Annotating page with git blame". With the following text.

When reading article, one can need to determine when and by whom some part of page was written. For example, to detect outdated info, or determining the user who made a questionable edit.

Unfortunately, there is no native "Who Wrote This" functionality in Arch Wiki. But you can use git-mediawiki script. It saves the page as a git repository, and you can annotate it with {{ic|git blame}}. Ashark (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Btw. the real git-mediawiki is https://github.com/Git-Mediawiki/Git-Mediawiki — Lahwaacz (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

It did not worked for me when I tried. I decided to make my own script in Python. That project uses `git-mw`, and my uses `git-mediawiki`, so there should not be a conflict. Ashark (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Your project has different scope so it should have different name. Hiding behind a famous namesake is not nice. — Lahwaacz (talk) 06:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I did not tried to "hide behind a famous namesake" at all. I just wanted my project name to be descriptive and not conflicting with their executable (git-mw). I can rename it, maybe like "gitify-mediawiki". But that (or other suggestions) should be better discussed in the project itself, instead of in Arch Wiki. Ashark (talk) 06:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Is the phrasing on the rule about other distros right?

I'm new here, but, I couldn't help but ask what rule 5.1 means about "comments peculiar to other distros". Does that mean "do not point out what is unique to Arch and strange to other platforms"?

The reason I ask is, the text after that clause makes me think you meant to say "particular" to other distros?

> 5.1, first bullet: "do not add comments peculiar [particular?] to other Linux distributions or operating systems; for example, a Fedora user contributing to the systemd page would be fine, but mentioning that the newly added content works on Fedora would be edited out as irrelevant;"

...Or am I misunderstanding it? BurntVoxel (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Peculiar implies particular, other synonyms might be specific or unique, but peculiar is less strong in my opinion. To stick with the example: there may be systemd Arch specific defaults that can be helpful to point to, if it is relevant for the context. However, most settings will be default both on Fedora and Arch.

Perhaps we should add something like "You can use the edit summary description to point to extra upstream references, such as links or the systemd release you refer to."

--Indigo (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

If you extrapolate that sentence, you'll see why I think that word choice itself is peculiar.

"Comments that are peculiar to other distros don't belong here." -> "Comments that are peculiar to Fedora belong to Fedora Wiki. Comments that are peculiar to Arch belong here."

I do not know anyone who would not read this as a request for comments that Arch users find strange and unusual. BurntVoxel (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Your extrapolation is wrong. "Comments that are peculiar to Arch belong here." is obviously true, but placing it next to "Comments that are peculiar to Fedora belong to Fedora Wiki." gives the false impression that nothing else belongs here. What is so peculiar about the sentence that made you extrapolate this way? — Lahwaacz (talk) 15:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Mention discussion tools

If no objections arise, I'm going to add the following sentence to the last para of ArchWiki:Contributing#The most important task:

To help with keeping up-to-date about replies, you can enable web-/email notifications for talk topics, as well as subscribe to them, via Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo.

Additionally, we should cover the new discussiontool in Help:Discussion, but it's good to mention subscriptions here. Indigo (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems to be already covered in Help:Discussion#With DiscussionTools. Or do you have something specific to add? — Lahwaacz (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I just want to bring visibility for the UI options, which is easier using the prefsection-link first, before the mw-link. New contributors probably click through the tabs once, returning may not realize how options changed. --Indigo (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't mind expanding this page, my comment was related to the Help:Discussion page. — Lahwaacz (talk) 07:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Done with Special:diff/823353, I left out subscriptions as they are default for these cases. Closing. --Indigo (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)