ArchWiki talk:Maintenance Team

From ArchWiki
Note: This talk page is not reserved to wiki maintainers: any user can write here to contact the team about organization or administration issues not related to a specific article.

Reorganization

The Maintenance Team was officially launched 3years-2weeks ago, and has since become an indispensable resource for the wiki, vastly improving the effectiveness of wiki maintenance, and also proving to be a fantastic ground for training new future administrators.

However, even things that work well can be further improved, and through time I've collected several ideas that I'd like to outline here:

  1. I'd like to rename the "Maintainers" group as a more commonly recognized "Moderators".
  2. ✓ This page would stay with this title, and the "Maintenance Team" would represent the team made by admininstrators and moderators, serving as the central page where to organize the collaboration workflow.
  3. ✓ We should use this very talk page as the best place to point users to for generic questions, complaints etc., instead of ArchWiki talk:Administrators (e.g. update the link in ArchWiki:Contributing#Complaining).
  4. ✓ I'd like to deprecate ArchWiki:Reports, and just invite to report issues directly in the affected articles' talk pages, possibly also adding proper status templates where useful. I don't know if we should keep the Reports page as an additional page where to also report urgent problems, what I've seen is that almost each of us has his own methods for keeping track of discussions, and the "Recent talks" page in the left column is quite efficient at signalling new issues for those who don't follow the full recent changes.
    Historically, ArchWiki:Reports was created because there wasn't anybody doing a systematic patrolling of the changes, even if only limited to talk pages, but in modern days this seems to have improved, so this can be another argument in favor of its deprecation.
    Maintainers who add entries to the table manually wouldn't be too much affected, since it takes the same effort to add an entry to a table or add a quick report to a generic talk page. Those who instead are using Wiki Monkey to add quick reports to the table, will of course see a difference, but I will commit myself to modifying the plugin so that it can insert reports in the article's talk page, probably with an explicit message stating that the report has been created automatically.
  5. Note mostly to myself, Wiki Monkey has some feature requests that are related to this restructuring: #175, #176, #197 and #198.
  6. ✓ The ArchWiki:Maintenance_Team#Current_patrols list can be deprecated, since it hasn't helped improving the number of full-range patrols, also apparently ending up including inactive members.
  7. ArchWiki:Maintenance_Team#Statistics was useful to track the evolution of the initial 146 reports, but now I think it's useless and can be deprecated together with ArchWiki:Reports.

Opinions needed. — Kynikos (talk) 09:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Point 1) Sounds good to me.
Point 2) Agreed.
Point 3) I think that's a good idea. In so doing, that would ensure that the admin talk page is freed up for purely administrative discussions.
Point 4) Personally, I agree with the removal of the reports page. The people who are most likely to be able to fix issues for a particular article are probably the people who keep track of that article's talk page. I don't think that trying to centralize issue reporting achieves much.
Points 6 & 7) Agreed
-- Chazza (talk) 10:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
1,2,3. Also agree, this matches the BBS title "Forum Moderator". We could perhaps ask Jason to update the profiles of maintainers with a BBS account
4,7. I'm neutral on this... I think having ArchWiki:Reports as a central place for edits offers a better overview than WhatLinksHere, Recent Talks, and whatnot, also considering the table format. But perhaps I'm just lazy. :)
6. Yep, and not including active members as well. -- Alad (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Also agreed. W.r.t 4 & 7, we might also try to generate some lists/tables based on the status templates and make a nice, sorted, filtered and ranked report e.g. once per month. Extracting the original flag date would be probably difficult, but perhaps not impossible.
Is it also the time to consider ArchWiki_talk:Administrators#Meaning_of_Administrator at this point?
-- Lahwaacz (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
About 1, I'm adding that it has to be done in 3 steps: create the moderators group, then move each maintainer to moderator, and finally delete the maintainers group.
Of course point 4 is the most controversial, replacing it with some kind of fully automated log/report would be ideal, but IMO it can be implemented later on. @Alad: I understand your concerns, but the benefits of always reporting directly in the articles' talk pages are quite clear now that talk pages seem to be much more watched than they were in the past (also thanks to the fact that IIRC finally MediaWiki is adding modified/created pages to watchlists by default for new users), and if we start doing that, keeping ArchWiki:Reports would mean having to do at least two edits for each report (or three if a status template is added), so that's why I proposed deprecating it; as I said, I will try to update Wiki Monkey to automate the new reporting procedure as much as possible, and I guess I could still have it append entries to ArchWiki:Reports too, but the problem would be keeping the table in sync with the linked reports in the talk pages... I'll think about it.
ArchWiki_talk:Administrators#Meaning_of_Administrator could surely be implemented in this article, it's very related indeed.
Kynikos (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm ok with everything, but +1 to keep (4) the reports. There is no question that you are right, items should be handled in the respective article's talk pages - the sooner, the better. Yet, I believe this is done anyway by all and the current reports are only a residual. I find it valuable to keep this as an opportunity (also for the visible quicklink), at least for some time. Reason: Imagine someone patrols a problematic in recent changes but the article is outside the own interest/ expertise and/or time to open a proper talk item (which would often be more elaborate than the report comment) is sparse. It would be a pity, if it is foregone or tracked in the backhead todo list only.
How about doing it like you propose, but changing procedure for the reports that may still be opened: They could be moved directly by anyone (incl. the creator on return) to the respective talk pages. If we then see the list stays tiny, it can be fully deprecated. --Indigo (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
My idea (which I hadn't eleaborated yet here) was to allow the creation of quick reports (also automated with Wiki Monkey) in articles' talk pages similar to the current entries in ArchWiki:Reports' table, probably also using a template to stress the fact that the comment has been added quickly and the reporter may only be confused about the edit and in need for confirmation. I'll use an existing report from ArchWiki:Reports as an example of how it could look instead in the affected article's talk page:

Quick report

[This is an automatic report about https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=PhpPgAdmin&curid=11293&diff=346886&oldid=345943, please help reviewing it]
Comment: I'm not qualified to check the content, but style is poor regardless. -- User, Timestamp
The whole thing could be manually added simply with:
{{Report|https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=PhpPgAdmin&curid=11293&diff=346886&oldid=345943|I'm not qualified to check the content, but style is poor regardless.}} -- ~~~~
The link to ArchWiki:Reports (the "report" anchor text) could be useful to list all the open reports with a search like https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=ArchWiki%3AReports&namespace=1 since it's unlikely that Talk pages link there for other reasons.
If using Wiki Monkey, more details could be added automatically, e.g. the timestamp and author(s) of the edit(s), Special:Diff could be used instead of the full link, and it could create the report in full text (i.e. like using the template with subst).
Kynikos (talk) 10:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Now in this case I'd like to nominate "(4) to deprecate Archwiki:Reports" for the Archwiki Understatement of the Year(TM) category. No, really - ace idea. That would be an ingenious enhancement imo. --Indigo (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah sorry, my original idea was still very vague, replying to your post has given me the chance to develop it into something that could actually work, although it would still need some refinement. I'm glad you like it, hoping that you weren't sarcastic of course :P Maybe we can see what the others think of it too, since I'm sure you're not the only one who didn't imagine that (4) was about something like that... — Kynikos (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
For the moment I've done points 6 and 7. — Kynikos (talk) 03:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I think you got it, but of course it was not sarcasm, just trying to make a funny remark. Your idea with the quick report is great lateral thinking. One small reservation I have is about using a Template for it. We all know the hazzle of template breaking characters and I wonder if it might be cumbersome to use a template, but that can be seen. In any case it should be useful to get forward with a decision on where to go with the reports. Anyone else want to share an opinion on (4)? --Indigo (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Eheh I got it I got it, thanks for confirming your support. I think the quick report would only be for short messages, like those in ArchWiki:Reports' table, which are probably even worse when it comes to breakability, so unsupported characters wouldn't be an added problem. I suppose that if somebody wants to reply to a new-style quick report, they can do it below (i.e. outside of) the template, like in a normal discussion.
I don't think we'll find many more people interested in replying, anyway I'm waiting to find some time to update Wiki Monkey's plugin, that's probably my main reason for delaying (4).
To complete the status update, (5) will come with (4), while (2) and (3) practically depend on (1), which in turn is on the shoulders of who is currently maintaining the back-end, even though it's a micro patch.
Kynikos (talk) 20:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Even if the WikiMonkey additions aren't completed yet, I'd now suggest to deprecate ArchWiki:Reports rather sooner than later. Over the course of the year, it has hardly seen any usage, and old reports which are long fixed amassed on the page. -- Alad (talk) 12:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm still on with this plan. About Wiki Monkey (and my other software projects) I should be able to resume allocating some time within a couple of weeks, without promising anything, but yes, I don't want it to be a blocker for this idea. — Kynikos (talk) 10:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I've flagged the page for archiving for now [1]; it should be straightforward to translate the few remaining reports to article templates. We can do the actual redirect once WikiMonkey is updated -- take your time. :) -- Alad (talk) 11:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to know if there's still consensus on 1?
If it were to be implemented, here's a list of things to do:
  1. Replace $wgGroupPermissions['maintainer'] = array(); with $wgGroupPermissions['moderator'] = array(); in LocalSettings.php and get it deployed.
  2. Ask DevOps to run php maintenance/MigrateUserGroup.php 'maintainer' 'moderator'. See mw:Manual:migrateUserGroup.php.
  3. Move MediaWiki:Grouppage-maintainer to MediaWiki:Grouppage-moderator.
  4. Delete MediaWiki:Group-maintainer and MediaWiki:Group-maintainer-member.
  5. Create MediaWiki:Group-moderator and MediaWiki:Group-moderator-member.
  6. Update ArchWiki:Access levels and roles, ArchWiki:Maintenance Team and other pages.
-- nl6720 (talk) 06:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Regular Wiki Cleanup Days

I think it would be really useful to have regular wiki cleanups where people gather together to work on the wiki. This could help with organizing categories, cleaning out mentions of rc.conf, or doing major edits/reorganizations. They could be held every 3 months (4x a year) with lots of advertisement and be a great way to get more people involved in Arch Linux. Meskarune (talk) 19:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Admin guidance

Show we add some guidence that an admin should follow, the responsibilty they should take?

Example:

  • Encourage contribution from Arch users.
  • Guide new contributor to follow Arch Wiki Style.

--Fengchao (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, if somebody becomes an admin, (s)he's probably been judged to be already fully aware of all his/her responsibilities, since becoming an admin requires quite a bit of experience as an editor (most likely as a maintainer first). Yes, some users are given administration rights because of other roles in the community, e.g. Devs, TUs, forum admins etc., but they usually don't act as "real" wiki administrators. Nonetheless, some guidelines may help users understand what is the role of an admin, and the same goes for maintainers, and we could create a proper page for that, as was conceived in #Meaning of Administrator. -- Kynikos (talk) 06:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
"Encourage contribution from Arch users" sounds like something even maintainers should do, in my opinion.
-- NetSysFire (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Cite extension

[Moved from User talk:Kynikos#Cite extension. — Kynikos (talk) 10:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)]

I'm feeling bad about not having a way to cite my sources properly in my article. As I do for the LibreOffice Newsletter I'm in charge of I'll do as it for my Arch Linux articles:


Some text<ref name=myRefName />

== References ==

<ref name=myRefName>[http://someURL The link]</ref>

I don't know if this system suits you. Let me know. -- wget (talk) 01:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately you cannot use the ref tag in this wiki, since it requires the Cite extension, which we don't have installed. Generally we don't require to support every statement with citations, unlike for example on Wikipedia, but it will be very useful if you will add references to external sources simply using links on keywords, like this, or this[2] (see the source text for the implementation; we don't have style rules about this for the moment). If you want to mention the generic sources that you use for writing the article, you should just add them to Dynamic Kernel Module Support#See also. -- Kynikos (talk) 05:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't like this idea very much. The See also section sounds like we invite the user to read these documents to provide more detailed information to the reader, implying the Arch Linux documentation is not complete enough. This isn't actually what we want to do in this case: we just adapted an existing article to build a section of the Arch Linux documentation page. And yes, I would really like to have citations like in Wikipedia, but without the need to cite every assumptions we make obviously. Would you mind installing the Cite extension? -- wget (talk) 12:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately installing extensions requires write access to the repository, which is restricted to Developers, and a feature request should be opened in the bug tracker. I don't see other alternatives to the methods I proposed above.
That said, ArchWiki articles are not intended to be "complete" as in "it shouldn't be necessary to read anything else in order to understand every detail of the topic"; if the topic has good upstream/official documentation, there's no point in duplicating it, see also Help:Style#Hypertext metaphor.
-- Kynikos (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Kynikos. Happy New Year! Any news about the citation extension? Yet again today, I wanted to write on the wiki that yaourt does support bash and zsh completion, and to link these assumptions to the source code. The cite extension is indeed very useful, especially in the case (like this one) when upstream has not good documentation. If you haven't already reported the feature request on the bug tracker, are you willing to support the one I'm gonna write? Otherwise, I don't see the interest in writing that request: devs will unlikely accept it without your support. Thanks in advance. -- wget (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Happy New Year mate :) Honestly I don't see the need for the cite extension here: can't you just use simple inline links as I proposed above? (And as it's done in every article?) Sorry, but unless you prove that you really have no way to add that link without the extension, I can't support your request... Just try to amend the article with inline links and let's see how it looks, ok? I'll try to help you fix the style, if needed ;) -- Kynikos (talk) 05:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Yesterday again, I was cleaning/updating the Browser plugins and wanted to put a link to the official where I took that information from. That link concerned two locations in that article: Disable the "Press ESC to exit full screen mode" message and Multiple monitor full-screen fix, the solution using inline links was to duplicate that URL which I didn't. Regarding the your message, the problem seems to be a lack of workforce then. A possible solution would be merging wikis and forums of the native languages communities into Arch Linux infrastructure, bringing along all these admins/maintainers to the Arch infra. But for that a bunch of work needs to be done first: easy multilanguage support (especially regarding links) on the Wiki (maybe native language staff can help for that). -- wget (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I see, actually if you want to use the same link in two different sections, there's nothing against it; even if there was the Cite extension installed, you'd have to duplicate the <ref> tag, right? There are already many articles with multiple instances of the same internal or external links, I don't see any harm with that, as long as the duplicated links are found in indipendent parts of an article.
-- Kynikos (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, just the <ref> tag will need to be duplicated, but the URL, authors, description, etc. will not. That ref will just act as a very short reference to the long <ref> tag written at the end of the article. See this example, this is the way we are working at TheDocumentFoundation. -- wget (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
In general, also expanding on what I wrote in my arch-general post that you linked, my position is that it's too late to install the Cite extension now, because that would only introduce a new style standard for external links that would make all the existing articles style-obsolete, in practice starting a very long — if not infinite — transition period over which articles would have both inline and referenced links, which I wouldn't see as an improvement at all.
-- Kynikos (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Don't underestimate my patience or my scripting abilities ;-), I'm the kind of guy a bit maniac, with obsessive need to get everything neat. So transition period isn't really a problem ;-) -- wget (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Eheh I understand, I guess I'm a bit like that myself :P Well, considering that we've got this far, I'm going to move this branch of the discussion to ArchWiki talk:Administrators and see what are the opinions of the rest of the team. — Kynikos (talk) 09:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but I dislike the Wikipedia citation style simply because it needs 3 clicks instead of one: one to see the link, a second to open it, and a third to return to the article. That said I'm a proponent of requiring citations for statements made on this wiki: Help_talk:Style#Citations and reasoning (one of these days I'll get to making a draft). -- Alad (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
What I was saying is that if Wikipedia-style citations had been used from the beginning of this wiki, I think we'd probably be used to them by now; it's true that they require more effort to follow a link if you don't use the mouseover tooltip (e.g. when using pentadactyl, vimfx etc.; tooltips can also be set to appear on click though); on the other hand, though, they encourage the maintenance of a comprehensive list of external reference links at the bottom of each article. Anyway, as I've repeated multiple times, now I'm against introducing Wikipedia-style citations.
Regarding requiring citations, I'll wait for your draft, but I think making them a requirement could be too much: what do we do with unreferenced statements? Delete them? Or fill articles with "Citation needed" templates? Wikipedia needs citations more than us because it deals with topics that can be easily discussed from biased standpoints; also, it doesn't allow original research, see also Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Verifiability. In this wiki, I'd talk more of a recommendation, and well specify what kind of statements should better be referenced.
Kynikos (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Please see it like this: using inline or referenced links are just two different style conventions: the ArchWiki happens to use the first one, let's just stick to it and concentrate on the rest, ok? :)
There is indeed a lack of workforce on the back-end, although I have to acknowledge the fact that Pierre has recently finally pushed MediaWiki 1.24 in the repo, which means it will reach the server very soon; anyway, his policy regarding internationalization has always been the opposite of your proposal, i.e. encourage localized versions to host their own wiki, so your idea would find some opposition there; but even if it didn't, I think you're greatly overrating the state of the external Arch wikis: of them, only the German and French wikis are actually alive, and the German wiki is already maintained by Pierre himself :)
-- Kynikos (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Didn't know much about the wiki infrastructure and native language frequentations, but what I've seen on the #archlinux-fr freenode IRC channel, there are some people involved with the French wiki who could be returned to the official wiki, recovering a bit more workforce. Its a great subject for discussion between officials (Pierre) and third parties IMHO. Yes, I'm in complete favour of federating around a same well defined goal: "Unity makes strength", "United we stand, divided we fall" is my country motto. -- wget (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, my personal opinion, which is not an official position because we've never discussed this among the admins, is that I'd be in favour of returning all the translations in the same wiki, but only after implementing Help talk:I18n#Language namespace(s) in place of suffixes? and proving that it works efficiently with the languages that are already hosted here; we should also prove that we can merge the databases of the external wikis safely and effectively. Only after that we could discuss the return of the external languages, stressing the fact that the admins coming from the other wikis should be willing to adapt to the English wiki customs, which I wouldn't take for granted.
For the first step I'll need to complete some adaptations to my bot, but that's not on high priority at the moment: I have a todo list that I follow more or less strictly, and I promise I'll get there :)
Kynikos (talk) 09:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Another advantage of being able to use <ref> is that one could also add meta information to the URL that's being linked to in order to prevent link rot. Not all URLs are descriptive enough to figure out where they might have gone when they're not reachabe anymore and the Wayback Machine wasn't able to crawl the site. -- Ckujau (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Cite is included in MediaWiki 1.21 and above according to the MediaWiki Extension:Cite docs. This wiki is running 1.37.1 (see Special:Version). If my understanding of the docs is correct then Maintainer should be able to add wfLoadExtension( 'Cite' ); to LocalSettings.php without any need to maintain any additional dependencies. -- TylerSzabo (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Moving here from the forum: a six years ago the main concern was maintenance, but now as highlighted by TylerSzabo, Cite is shipped by default with MediaWiki (same for syntax highlighting as said by Zaroth), what about enabling it? --D1nuc0m (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Nothing has changed on my opinion from 6 years ago, still -1 from me. And as Kynikos pointed out, we'd have 2 different ways of linking references, with a never-ending transition period. I think it's high time to close this discussion. -- Alad (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
I see that there are already two ways of linking references, this, and this[3], enabling Cite would be a "more elegant" solution for the second one, limit the "link rot" (once a link is checked, multiple references to it are ok) and would allow for the use of footnotes. And to be honest I don't understand the problem with a "transition period", why not using both solutions? --D1nuc0m (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Both ways are against Help:Style: the former contains "this" as a link label and the latter uses HTML tags. We would prefer not to add yet another way which would have to be handled by the style rules. — Lahwaacz (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
And would adding style rules be a problem? (I'm not ironic, I don't understand) --D1nuc0m (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
They would have to be created in the first place, of course assuming we could agree what they should look like. And that is not all, many other style rules would need to be adapted for consistency (especially because it adds a special section for the footnotes, which conflicts with our rule about Help:Style#"See also" section). And then we would have to make effort to make all pages consistent with the new style rules... — Lahwaacz (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes but I don't see why it should be a problem: rules and guidelines are not immutable (and allowing both styles wouldn't create a problem with changing the old content). Also, regarding the "See also" I think that footnotes and "See also" should serve different purposes: "See also" should contain link to additional information, for users who want to deepen the topic (in other words "information and resources about the topic of the page, not already included in the page itself"); while footnotes should be used for further explanations (the usual use in text) and for references (in other words "where this information already in the page comes from"). I don't know if I've made myself clear --D1nuc0m (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Scribunto

I would like the mw:Scribunto extension to be installed to the ArchWiki, so that we can improve existing templates and create new useful templates, which currently cannot be implemented. For example we currently cannot implement Template:Info. Furthermore mw:Lua scripting would make template code more readable and facilitate maintenance by allowing for translated templates without duplicating the template logic.

--Larivact (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't know how to feel about this. Obviously it would help to fix a lot of problems, but I wouldn't overestimate its usefulness. Lua modules still have to deal with arguments in the MediaWiki markup and the output is integrated back into the MediaWiki markup, so some problems will inherently persist. And since the core markup language sucks, combining it with a perfect scripting language would still be a sucking experience...
Another thing is that WMF moved to Lua primarily due to performance reasons and I don't think that our wiki has any performance problems with the current templates.
The last thing is a question whether we really need to invent more and more complicated templates or whether we can keep them simple like they are now. For example, we can say that Template:hc cannot be used inside lists, which covers at least 99% of the use cases, and for the remaining 1% I'm sure it is possible to adjust the surrounding content of the page to look good even if the template is not inside a list. Having a limited language for writing templates really helps to control the complexity of the resulting templates.
More opinions needed (especially from the administrators and maintainers).
-- Lahwaacz (talk) 11:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Since nobody else requested this, I'm closing this old discussion. -- Alad (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Patch Vector skin to display categories at the top of the page

Categories on the ArchWiki are currently displayed at the bottom of the page. While this is the MediaWiki default, it does make the categories of an article less accessible, especially if the article is long. Because categories provide such a great way to find related articles, I think they deserve to be prominently placed at the top, right below the page heading. This is also more consistent with our convention to keep categories at the top of the source text. I initially tried to implement the change using CSS but had to figure out that the two ways to move catlinks to the top with CSS, absolute and flex positioning, cannot be implemented cleanly as both don't work with margin collapsing. Kynikos asked WikiMedia if they would accept a Vector skin patch to implement the feature as an option, to which they didn't respond. I managed to patch the Vector skin to implement the desired change. Although we would need to maintain the patch ourselves, I think it is doable (the patch only changes 10 lines) and warranted as it would improve ArchWiki for every reader (that uses the default skin).

I submitted my patch as a pull request to the ArchWiki GitHub repository.

--Larivact (talk) 03:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Now that my patch was declined the only way left appears to be upstream. --Larivact (talk) 15:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Convention for splitting sections to new page

Under what circumstances should sections be split into new articles ? (I could not find any articles mentioning it exploring ArchWiki:Contributing. For exemple current OpenSSH#Tips_and_tricks, or pacman#Troubleshooting.

-- Apollo22 (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, it would probably be too hard to find generic criteria to decide when it's ok to split sections, it's always been discussed case by case. If you have solid arguments in favor of splitting those examples, you can flag them with Template:Move and start a discussion in their talk pages (not here).
Otherwise you can try to propose some generic guidelines, for the moment we have a procedure to implement a split after an agreement has been reached.
-- Kynikos (talk) 09:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Maybe not generic criterias, but specific ones. For example sections like Tips and tricks or Troubleshooting can expand quickly. A generic rule like: if more than 10 subsections are listed, you can move the section in a subarticle without asking first -- Apollo22 (talk) 10:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Another example is applications lists. Splitting them in a subarticle would allow direct inclusion in both the specific article and the applications list. -- Apollo22 (talk) 10:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
That's not enough, because e.g. Chromium/Tips and tricks is flagged to be merged with the main page again. In any case, splitting sections into separate pages has to be discussed first, because it is a radical restructuring of an article and we have ArchWiki:Contributing#The 3 fundamental rules. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 11:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
In case the Chromium page, I believe the separation in two pages is sane (I think the main page is long enough to justify the split). Also, in my mind, splitting a file is not a radical restructuring, but I understand the position of always announcing it first. Which template should be used to announce a split ? The Template:Move description suggest it is only for renaming articles ? -- Apollo22 (talk) 10:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I've fixed the Template:Move description, the template has frequently been used to flag sections to be split, e.g. Network configuration#Device driver, Arch terminology#Arch Linux or List of applications#Network managers, which works pretty fine. -- Kynikos (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, the related articles sidebar can appear to be a little bloated on some articles (for exemple pacman). Should there be a dedicated side bar for subarticles (not sure about the name) like pacman/Tips_and_tricks in pacman ?

-- Apollo22 (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't find pacman's related articles box bloated; I'm instead afraid that I would find a separate dedicated side bar for subarticles to be an unnecessary complication. -- Kynikos (talk) 09:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I understand. On a related note, how about adding an explicit rule/procedure to put subarticles first or last ? Also, if this is accepted, shoud/could there be a separator between subarticles and related articles ? Current exemple in ArchWiki:Sandbox -- Apollo22 (talk) 10:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't have a preference about the order of subarticles in related links, you can see if you gain some interest in Help talk:Style, I suggest listing some example articles and show how their related boxes would change if an ordering rule was enforced, and assess pros and cons.
About separators, I don't like them in this context regardless of the links order :)
-- Kynikos (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Remove redirect page with bad title

This topic is similar to above #Removing unnecessary redirects / pages but with a different target redirections.

Background:

  • The Help:Article naming guidelines changes along the years, so there exist many Old_Title -> New_Title redirections.
  • Many new users contribute to Arch Wiki before they notice there is Help:Article naming guidelines, so there exist many Bad_Title -> Good_Title redirections.
  • The Arch Wiki search field got a suggestion function years ago (Maybe since v1.3?), it is more user friendly but a new problem arise.

Problem: Redirect pages show up in search suggestion, so the search suggestion is usually very messy. For example for "Installation", I may get some thing likes:

Installation guide
Installation Guide
Installation guide(Català)
Installation guide (Català)
Installation Guide (Català)

Solution: Delete pages with bad_title/old_title after some transition time? 6 months or 1 year? Any objection or better suggestion?

—This unsigned comment is by Fengchao (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2020‎ (UTC). Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

I think that pages with bad titles can be deleted after a week, and pages with old titles can be deleted after half a year. -- Blackteahamburger (talk) 09:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I think this makes sense, also discouraging redirects with spelling errors (like "Flatpack" to Flatpak which was recently suggested). Of course, all this assuming that the redirect does not contain any relevant history which should be kept. — Lahwaacz (talk) 10:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
One such redirect (that I think should be deleted) is Keeping Docs and Info Files. No other wiki pages link to it either. -- Flyingpig (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
That one contains a history, so it should be kept (or archived at most). — Lahwaacz (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
What about renaming it (to something like Keeping documentation and information files) and deleting the page with the old title? I think that should keep the revision history while maintaining compliance with style guidelines. -- Flyingpig (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I think "info" here was referring to info, but it's still better than the old title which I now deleted. — Lahwaacz (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I guess the "bad" title wasn't as bad as I thought then. -- Flyingpig (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Guys, I have made some mess while moving a page into a user subpage, so some redirect pages ought to be deleted:
-- Duodai (talk) 06:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Both pages are now deleted. -- nl6720 (talk) 10:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I have found that there are a lot of badly named redirects in the Russian AW (Pacman/Tips and tricks (Русский), Pacman (Русский)/Советы и приёмы, etc.), so later I shall create a list of such pages and put it here.
-- Duodai (talk) 10:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Here is one, please delete it: RTorrent(简体中文)。 -- Blackteahamburger (talk) 10:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Done. -- nl6720 (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm joining in here with two more pages that should be deleted : Securing arch linux and Arch Linux Server, neither have an history and both are needlessly using Arch Linux in the page title without being used anywhere. --Erus Iluvatar (talk) 19:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
And one more Etkinleştir --Erus Iluvatar (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
All done, thank you. -- Kynikos (talk) 06:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you ! I've stumbled upon one more : Expansão, which links to Template:Expansion but is not used anywhere as this template should not be used on translations. --Erus Iluvatar (talk) 08:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Done. -- nl6720 (talk) 12:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Are there statistics of page access?

Out of curiosity, is there a resource of analytics or any other statistics of pages access for, e.g., knowing which pages are more demanded by users? This subject came up in my translation group when talking about where to focus translation in. -- Josephgbr (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think so, but you can try asking the devops team to filter the web server logs and make some statistics public. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 08:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I think this is very good and can be used to confirm the priority of translation and confirm the pages that should be maintained from time to time. -- Blackteahamburger (talk) 10:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Would be nice to review and assist with what matters most to our users. Adamlau (talk) 05:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Acceptable user names and signatures

I've just blocked User:🥚 for a week until we make a decision on a general policy, they had only edited their User page, so it's borderline spam or a joke, but that's not my main point.

I think the user name is practically unsearcheable without copy-pasting, and too hard to address for example in talk pages, it may mess up logs, bots etc.

1) I propose to limit user names to ascii characters, plus possibly the other languages' characters that we support, but exclude emoticons and other fancy unicode characters. We'd either need a comprehensive definition or reserve the right to decide case by case.

-- Kynikos (talk) 12:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, it messed up wiki-scripts and it took me more than an hour to figure out the problem... [4] To actually limit the user names, we could write an abuse filter with some regex matching (assuming that the extension actually works). -- Lahwaacz (talk) 13:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
If we find an exact character set, sure we can try with an abuse filter. For the moment I'm also adding a reference to w:Wikipedia:Username_policy#Non-script_usernames (and the rest of the page): we may even default to using that page too. -- Kynikos (talk) 13:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I think that would be a good policy for us too. It's certainly much better than writing our own from scratch :) -- Lahwaacz (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't really see an issue with these kind of usernames; if some script can't parse them, then it's the fault of the script not the username. There hasn't yet been a influx of users with malicious intents and not-easily typable usernames, so I'd rather we don't take a heavy handed approach. Let's not overreact over an egg. -- nl6720 (talk) 09:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Ok that bots are supposed to be able to handle unicode, and the "too hard" in my OP should have better been "needlessly hard", of course we can find our way around weird usernames, still assuming that MediaWiki and the extensions that we use are "ok" with that too (MW is mainly developed around Wikipedia, and adopting a looser username policy may end up into unexplored territory).
In general though I think nobody whose goal is constructive interaction with the community would choose a clearly deliberately hard-to-handle username. After all, the purpose of a username is to make oneself easily identifiable by the other members of the community, it's not there only for aesthetic or artistic reasons.
I wouldn't see adopting w:Wikipedia:Username_policy as heavy handed, the restrictions on misleading and disruptive usernames make a lot of sense to me, still leaving a lot of freedom of choice.
I'd also be ok to take this to a vote.
-- Kynikos (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
I updated Special:AbuseFilter/16 to allow only usernames with ASCII characters in range 0x20–0x7E. Let's see if anyone complains. -- nl6720 (talk) 12:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I disabled filter 16 and instead updated filters 15, 5 and 6. Let's hope I didn't break anything. -- nl6720 (talk) 12:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

2) While I'm at it I'd also propose to ban custom signatures, which are very rare, but when used they badly mess up the source text of talk pages for no reason.

-- Kynikos (talk) 12:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Or at least ban custom signatures that hide or change the real username. -- Kynikos (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
User:😎 just registered, although this is just a test account of User:Klausenbusk, who is a member of the devops team, this is still relevant. I am still in favor of adopting the blocklist used by Wikipedia, as mentioned in #Abusefilter.
-- NetSysFire (talk) 02:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

3) Related: reserve a class of usernames that may be used for official purposes, eg., legal, privacy, policy, security. Jasonwryan (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that a user was just deleted for having an obscene username (credits to me for finding and annoying the wiki admins with it). Having a wikipedia-like automated check if the username matches a regex would definitely help with detection of that. Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention.
-- NetSysFire (talk) 15:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't see any automation on that wikipedia page. If you give us a regex, we could try blocking that with AbuseFilter (assuming it actually works...). — Lahwaacz (talk) 08:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
The automation is doing a bot, which does regex matching. The bot reports it on the aforementioned page so it can be reviewed since false positives are a thing. We are not as big as wikipedia anyways, so just having something report it might even be a bit too much. The other part is users reporting accounts since a bot can not possibly catch everything. There is a list of regexes that the bot uses though: Wikipedia:User:AmandaNP/UAA/Blacklist
-- NetSysFire (talk) 10:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I tried those patterns in Special:AbuseFilter/test using
_regex := "INSERT_REGEX_HERE";
action === 'createaccount' & accountname irlike _regex
From 2021-12-22 it matched only three account creations.
❄️❄️ nl6720 (talk) 11:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
A little while ago I created Special:AbuseFilter/16. It blocks usernames matching w:User:AmandaNP/UAA/Blacklist and a few other words, but not Unicode ranges. So far it has 49 hits. -- nl6720 (talk) 10:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Visual editor

[Moved from Help talk:Editing#Visual Editor. -- nl6720 (talk) 09:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)]

Why isn't there any visual editor in ArchWiki, as in Wikipedia? -- FOSS ভক্ত (talk) 12:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
AFAIK no one has proposed adding a visual editor. -- nl6720 (talk) 13:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I see. How to make a request? I'm talking about the editor of Wikipedia which contains both Visual Editor and Source Editor. -- FOSS ভক্ত (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
You already have :) And I gathered that you're talking about Extension:VisualEditor.
MediaWiki 1.35.0 will be released this week, so VisualEditor together with 2017 wikitext editor are a valid option to consider as the new default editor.
The concerns with VisualEditor is how will the wikitext turn out. We'd also need to create TemplateData for all templates. Looking at Wikipedia, adding templates is not at all intuitive if you don't know which template you need beforehand. But that's probably not that relevant since we have rules that govern wiki editing.
-- nl6720 (talk) 06:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Outdated pages in the DeveloperWiki

I have encountered DeveloperWiki:Linux Conferences which is horribly outdated. I hereby request the deletion of the page. I asked about this in the IRC channel and was advised to take this here by User:Svito, which also mentioned that it might make sense to discuss some other, more general questions here:

  1. Who is responsible for those?
  2. Where to nag people to update/archive them? (My comment on this: I already asked on the talk page of a DeveloperWiki article to remove a bit from the page because it has a dead link (as you all might have noticed, I like to fix dead and broken links).)
  3. There are some pages in the DeveloperWiki with one or multiple issues (mostly broken/dead links and outdated stuff), what should be done about that? It clutters the statistics a bit in my opinion

NetSysFire (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

  1. Developers are responsible for DeveloperWiki.
  2. Refer to 1.
  3. Generally we try to refrain from touching DeveloperWiki (that's why it's in such a horrible shape). If you want to change something in a page, it's better to ask a developer to do it.
-- nl6720 (talk) 05:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
The DeveloperWiki is basically a wild west. Discussions on talk page will be ignored for the most. The pages are not updated for ages. As the pages are public, the users may want to improve/update the content on such pages if they find it relevant. But users basically are unable to do so. For example, I wanted to update info in the DeveloperWiki:UID_/_GID_Database. I asked in irc channel my request, but I was told "The devwiki isn't there to teach the general userbase about anything". Then I cannot see a reason to show the page to non-developers users. And I was told "Why hide it?".
From the reader's perspective of view, such pages are uneditable junk. And no one is going to update it: developers do not care or do not have time, and the developers users are a really little number of people.
So I think either some pages should be hidden (so in the main wiki userspace users will create an "updatable" version) or info on such pages should be editable in some way (probably by moving some pages to normal namespace). What do you think? Ashark (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Pages in the DeveloperWiki are written by developers for developers, i.e. not for general userbase. From my point of view, they are already "hidden" behind the DeveloperWiki: prefix. If this is not obvious enough, maybe we should make it more understandable somehow.
As for the DeveloperWiki:UID_/_GID_Database page, its purpose is/was to allocate numbers for specific packages. That's it. The documentation of what these users and groups are for and how they should be used belongs to separate pages dedicated to the relevant package. If it is a general system group, it would be described in Users and groups#Group list.
Lahwaacz (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
In theory, my understanding was the pool of people both qualified to edit it, and capable of actually doing so, was supposed to be greatly expanded by allowing TUs to do so, but this was waiting on "permission models" of some sort? Eschwartz (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't think giving TUs access to DeveloperWiki was ever considered from the wiki administrator side. The "privileged" access level was created and assigned to developers with a different motivation. Though now that it exists, it can be used for such purpose, but such decision must come from developers. -- nl6720 (talk) 10:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
The problem with that, unless we create yet another access level, is that 59 TUs would get "privileged", which can edit the same pages as cosysop (reserved to wiki maintainers). So we'd undo the whole effort of not giving unnecessary wiki-wide permissions to accounts that only need it to edit a few select pages. -- Alad (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
User:Jelly composed a list of pages that can be removed. I think we can mark them for archiving (or redirection if possible) and per ArchWiki:Archive, archive them after a week. -- nl6720 (talk) 10:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
This discussion has been inactive for a while, let's consider it closed ? The page that started the topic is archived. --Erus Iluvatar (talk) 12:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
The marked pages in the linked list have not been archived (or even flagged for archiving) yet. -- nl6720 (talk) 13:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
My bad, you are right there are many pages left on the link... But from the content of some of them I think they are still in use (the first that comes to my mind is DeveloperWiki:Building in a clean chroot). We have to migrate them then ? --Erus Iluvatar (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
It says: Pages checked are marked for removal. -- nl6720 (talk) 14:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
It is possible to move the DeveloperWiki out of ArchWiki. DeveloperWiki should not actually be a part of ArchWiki. ArchWiki is not a place just for developers. -- Blackteahamburger (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't think we should do that. Arch Linux developers are part of Arch Linux, so there's no harm in them having their little corner in the ArchWiki. That said, for projects on gitlab.archlinux.org, some already use the project specific wikis available there. -- nl6720 (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Creation of a hardware team

As you might have noticed, there was significant recent activity on pages documenting hardware, especially laptops. The Laptop page guidelines have been created and all uncompliant pages have been flagged.

There is a lot more to hardware pages than just laptop pages, even if there are roughly 450 laptop pages (440 flagged, and there are a handful of good, newer ones). There are docks on the wiki, exotic USB devices, more exotic USB devices, modems and more. Also tablet PCs and apparently ARM-devices (yes User:nl6720, I agree that they do not belong here but they are still hardware pages).

Combined this may not yet be 500 pages but this is still a significant amount, this is why I propose the creation of a hardware team.

There are currently maybe two people (me and User:DerpishCat) working on hardware pages, but there should still be a central place to discuss everything relevant to hardware pages.

The goals are:

  1. Enable transparent discussions and decision making, this sounds awfully like a buzzword. But I want users to know why we do things and how
  2. Make current tasks public so others know what we need help with
  3. Coordination between users, also very buzzword-like. However it makes sense to split tasks sometimes.

The final goal we want to reach is that hardware pages are not a mess anymore. It is well-known that the wiki admins (fail to) pretend those pages do not exist since they sometimes ignore e.g Help:Style, some even violate the Code of Conduct by specifying things specific to e.g Manjaro, there is a big bunch of outdated pages and every page looks different in a bad kind of way.

-- NetSysFire (talk) 00:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

So you want to create ArchWiki:Hardware Team? With only two team members, I think it's a little too soon for that.
If you simply want a central discussion page, you can use Category talk:Hardware.
-- nl6720 (talk) 07:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Abusefilter

As you all may know, the Abusefilter is currently not very helpful. It randomly marks newly registered users as spam and sometimes (not very often though) even marks new pages as spam even though they are legitimate. These are two different things, I want to specifically discuss the filter that marks new users as spam.

I am in favor of adopting the "block"list that Wikipedia uses, with a few modifcations of course. There are a few things that are just not fitting or not necessary (like the filter for football clubs) and things I would add, for example:

  • If certain derivatives (e.g Manjaro) or other distros are in the name.
  • Mentioning of the archwiki or other related projects (e.g the AUR) perhaps? As a sort of self-reference.
  • This is quite old, but since there has been harassment of Allan in the past, maybe add some well-known nicks or names to the list, too? This would also be nice to highlight anyone who potentially tries to impersonate someone.

Fortunately there is not much spam currently, but it is always good to be prepared. Wikipedia also uses a variety of other things, like ClueBot NG but these may be overkill or just not applicable. I do not know how well the bot would work here, since the ArchWiki is much more technical in nature than Wikipedia. I can imagine there may be many false positives.

It may also be possible to instantly undo edits not using a (proper) edit summary this way. This is something that is purely beneficial in my opinion. Even very minor edits should have an edit summary.

-- NetSysFire (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

We should also enable mw:Extension:AntiSpoof. — Lahwaacz (talk) 07:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree with that. That looks like it will be beneficial, too.
-- NetSysFire (talk) 10:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Commercial self-promotion on the ArchWiki

See 670967, this is clearly commercial self-promotion here (Sidenote: using "latest" as the archiso version gets old really quickly). This is a very new account and also their first edit.

I did not undo this because this is not clearly defined anywhere. I would like your opinions on this.

-- NetSysFire (talk) 09:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks like spam to me... Jasonwryan (talk)
This is still a concern, see Special:Diff/715117, another clearly commercial promotion with a new account on their first edit. --Erus Iluvatar (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
I've blocked both accounts. Even if one may argue the links are "related" to Arch, the code of conduct clearly mentions: [5]
Promoting web-invites, blog posts or commercial promotions are actively discouraged, or outright prohibited. Registering just to promote your issue/cause, FOSS-related or not, treats the community as a resource and is not acceptable; if unsure about the appropriateness of your content, contact the support staff before posting.
-- Alad (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry to react here even though you've closed the topic, but I have another example of promotional content : Bilibili (简体中文) (and the translation Bilibili). The original page was created as the first contribution of the user in 2015-03-11, without any other contribution afterwards. --Erus Iluvatar (talk) 08:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
If the user hasn't edited in 7 years, banning them after that time probably won't do much... I've flagged Bilibili_(简体中文) for deletion, using your removal template for Bilibili. -- Alad (talk) 12:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much ! There are two broken redirect (哔哩哔哩 and B 站) left to those deleted pages which will need to be removed too. --Erus Iluvatar (talk) 05:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Now they are gone. — Lahwaacz (talk) 10:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Credits to User:Klausenbusk for finding them, but we got some more: 483786, 696889
-- NetSysFire (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
And it's gone -- Alad (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Visited links are gray

This makes the links blend in with the regular text on the page, especially when using Dark Reader. —This unsigned comment is by Glibg10b (talk) 07:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC). Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

From an accssibility/usability perspective, this is a terrible choice; something with some contrast for colourblind or visually impaired people would be a much better choice. Jasonwryan (talk) 06:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Which color would you prefer for visited links? The archweb site currently uses the same color for visited and unvisited links, which effectively disabled highlighting visited links... — Lahwaacz (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed this reply :p I would probably opt for the standard purple: it should provide sufficient contrast for low/impaired vision readers and will be familiar to anyone from the early web. No idea how graphic designers will react to it tho... Jasonwryan (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Delete Improving performance (简体中文) tmp

This page was originally moved to User:Dragonwater/Improving performance (简体中文) tmp‎, but due to Dragonwater's editing, this page still exists, so please delete it. -- Blackteahamburger (talk) 11:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

xx Talk before move page that created just before. xx
Everyone's works needs be respect. I hope maintenance members modify/move/delete pages with cautious. I just don't want get a contradiction just because page has a state changed or see my pages are move/delete when save. This is not a rule surely, but makes better.
-- Dragonwater (talk) 11:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
If I understood it correctly, trailing " tmp" in article's name means the article is intended as a draft. Such temporary pages must not appear in the main namespace. Blackteahamburger was right moving this draft into your personal subpage where you can finish the translation. After completing the translation, you can publish the clean version in the main namespace by choosing the appropriate name. Second page creation is an accident, there is no crime in it.
-- Duodai (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
I know I make a wrong, but I hope members inform me before move a page that likely editing.
I'm sorry for what mistake I make. Edit contradiction always be annoying, a page missing even more.
Dragonwater (talk) 03:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
In fact, this cannot be done because there is no way to know if anyone is editing. -- Blackteahamburger (talk) 10:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

How to change packaging policies

I recently made a note about the Wine Package Guidelines talk page because I want to modify them slightly. I'm new to editing here, so I was wondering if there was a proper procedure for doing this. Do I simply take initiative and watch for if people complain?

VinceUB (talk) 07:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Long, cluttered and hard to maintain pages

Unfortunately there are some pages on here which are hard to maintain because:

  • It is hard to validate the information without the specific hardware or software (which tends to be proprietary and may cost a lot)
  • No one knows if this still applies since the information may be ancient and the above still applies
  • There is so much content that transformed the page into something that is not feasible to maintain.

These are pages where lots of users contributed their individual solutions to and this basically spiralled out of control. The worst pages in this category are:

Other pages which are not as bad yet but should be monitored:

Both lists are unfortunately yet incomplete I suspect.

-- NetSysFire (talk) 01:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

The same applies to almost all troubleshooting sections and pages: Network configuration/Wireless#Troubleshooting drivers and firmware, Bluetooth#Troubleshooting, PulseAudio/Troubleshooting, Firefox#Troubleshooting, NVIDIA/Troubleshooting etc. — Lahwaacz (talk) 06:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
At least for troubleshooting sections, Help:Style#"Troubleshooting" section says to link the bug or create a bug report if there isn't any. There's nothing we can do for sections that don't include any bug links. -- nl6720 (talk) 09:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

User menu for logged out users

ArchWiki is now using the new Vector skin by default. That includes the user menu.

For logged out users, the user menu shows "Pages for logged out editors (learn more)".

The text can be customized in MediaWiki:vector-anon-user-menu-pages and the link title in MediaWiki:vector-anon-user-menu-pages-learn. The "learn more" link is hardcoded to Help:Introduction in MediaWiki 1.37, but it will use MediaWiki:vector-intro-page in some future release (see phab:T290813). There's also MediaWiki:vector-anon-user-menu-pages-label, but I'm not sure where that is shown.

So now we should decide what to do with these:

-- nl6720 (talk) 08:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Help:Introduction could probably be redirected to ArchWiki:Contributing. ❄️❄️ nl6720 (talk) 08:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Syntax highlighting in code blocks

MediaWiki since version 1.21 has the SyntaxHighlight extension bundled. It adds the <syntaxhighlight> block, which lets editors add code blocks with syntax highlighting in specified language for easier readibility. As ArchWiki is a highly technical wiki, with configuration file and script snippets sprinkled everywhere, I was surprised to find this wasn't enabled yet.

Is there a specific reason for this omission? If not, I'd happily welcome this addition to the wiki. -- Zaroth (talk) 12:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't say there's a "specific reason for this omission". It simply was never enabled. Even if we do get it enabled, we would not want it to be used directly in pages, only through templates. I think it should be possible to adjust Template:bc and Template:hc to add an additional parameter to specify syntax highlighting language. -- nl6720 (talk) 09:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable, I understand that the parameter would be directly passed to the tag and would have to be one from the list of languages that SyntaxHighlight supports. Assuming that approach, I looked at the extension's parameters to check which ones also would be useful to expose via template on ArchWiki. So:
  • lang - specifies lexer to use for highlighting, e.g. python, cfg, pacmanconf or one of many others. Would be useful in {{bc}}, {{hc}}, possibly even {{ic}} (for e.g. shell one-liners, using shell-session lexer so the # prompt is correctly interpreted)
  • highlight - highlights specified line(s), e.g. 3-5, 7. I can see this being useful in {{bc}} and {{hc}} for e.g. showing context of a config file section while highlighting the important/modified lines.
  • line and start parameters enable showing line numbers and choose the start of the shown numeration, respectively. I don't see it being particularly useful on ArchWiki, especially since the highlight parameter works fine without them. If one finds a plausible usecase, I guess they could be exposed in {{bc}} and {{hc}}.
  • class, style and inline parameters control style and are already covered by the existing templates, so no need to consider them (except maybe when modifying the templates' code).
I wanted to be helpful and try my hand at drafting what the new template code could look like. However, I can't tell whether the <pre> hack used in {{bc}} and {{hc}} will still be needed with the extension enabled without trying it out. If not, this change would certainly make these templates' code easier to read and understand. -- Zaroth (talk) 10:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't think we should care about any parameter other than lang.
Also adding wfLoadExtension( 'SyntaxHighlight_GeSHi' ); to LocalSettings.php will not be enough. The extension requires python-pygments python. I think, it would need to be added to https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/infrastructure/-/blob/master/roles/archwiki/tasks/main.yml#L20.
-- nl6720 (talk) 11:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Actually, I was wrong. pygmentize is shipped in extensions/SyntaxHighlight_GeSHi/pygments/pygmentize, so only python is needed. -- nl6720 (talk) 12:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Thinking about it more, it doesn't feel quite right to have a python binary running on the server just to provide syntax highlighting for a few code blocks. -- nl6720 (talk) 05:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
There is another way: Highlightjs integration, which, instead of doing the highlighting server-side via pygmentize, shift the burden to the client using highlight.js. AFAIK, it's intended to be a drop-in replacement for SyntaxHighlight, so the syntax and functionality should be nearly identical. Obvious cons of this solution are:
  • not being bundled with Mediawiki, which adds more maintenance weight of downloading and updating the plugin separately
  • making ArchWiki pages heavier due to added JS
But if including Python binary is the main issue, highlight.js is an alternative to that. -- Zaroth (talk) 07:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
It's not a real issue, but just my subjective feeling. Last time I asked, DevOps were ok with python on the server. I'll go with whatever solution other Maintenance Team members support. -- nl6720 (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Adding code of conduct and terms of service links in the footer

According to mw:Manual:Footer#Add links to the footer additional footer links can be created by editing LocalSettings.php. I think it would be a good idea to links to the code of conduct and terms of service.

I've prepared https://github.com/archlinux/archwiki/pull/53 https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/infrastructure/-/merge_requests/583. Thoughts?

-- nl6720 (talk) 11:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I like the idea. What determines the order of the links? Can we order the three "Terms" links alphabetically? — Lahwaacz (talk) 11:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
No idea. From what I understand, the hook simply appends. -- nl6720 (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protect Arch Linux on a VPS

As you might have seen, there were some problems with that page because it attracted people using this page as an ad board. It was the very first edit for most of the now banned users, so I hereby request that this page should be semi-protected to deter others with the same interests.

-- NetSysFire (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, that page is essentially an ad board. IMHO there's no difference if editors add their favorite VPS there or the providers add themselves. The end result is the same. (Semi-)protecting it will just lead to users starting discussions in the talk page, asking to list a provider and I'm sure no one is actually interested in curating any lists on that page. -- nl6720 (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Could it be restricted only to users with at least a few days/weeks old account or a few non-reverted edits ? --Erus Iluvatar (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
What's what "semi protected (allow only autoconfirmed users)"[6] would do.
I'm just saying that users will not just give up after not being able to make the edit themselves. They'll start a discussion about it in the talk page.
-- nl6720 (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
At least forcing a discussion on the Talk page will require *some* moderation of the proposed entry, ie., reduce the likelihood of "This is the bestest image"--type edits. Either way, given this is a potential revenue stream for people, there is bound to be attempted abuse. Jasonwryan (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm also in favor of semi-protecting the page. If anything, if these entries by commercial accounts are first posted on the talk page, we have some more to check them for authenticity. -- Alad (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Alright, I won't object to semi-protecting it. -- nl6720 (talk) 08:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Done -- Alad (talk) 12:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)