User talk:Regid

From ArchWiki
Latest comment: 22 December 2022 by CodingKoopa in topic QPA notes

mkinitcpio: Using RAID edit not working

The link you tried using in Special:Diff/562596 would not work because you tried linking to Mkinitcpio#Using Raid instead of Mkinitcpio#Using RAID and the capitalization matters. -- Eschwartz (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Executable/application names are italic, not monospaced

In Users and groups you are changing ''appname'' to {{ic|appname}} in situations that should not change, and these are being reverted. Please stick with ArchWiki style. On this subject, please read these two sections:

I reverted your recent change via Special:Diff/565064, just like was done in Special:Diff/565047 and Special:Diff/564779. Please stay tuned to the description on the history.

-- Josephgbr (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Long vs short options

Regarding [1]: there is no rule that long options should be used instead of short options, because in some cases (such as pacman or makepkg in the linked edit) the short options are arguably more common than the long ones. This is not the first time, so please stop doing these edits. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the issue of long vs short deserves a broaden discussion. Regid (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course you can discuss it wherever you want, but discussions outside of the wiki are very unlikely to lead to changes in the style rules for the wiki. There is a dedicated page for discussing style rules: Help talk:Style. I think you may even find a similar discussion there or in its history. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Regid, please see Help:Style#Spelling, [2], [3], thank you for your (other) contributions :) -- Kynikos (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Descriptive edit summaries

Please don't write edit summaries like this. If you added "{", write just "added a missing {" or "fixed template". It is pointless to duplicate what is seen much better in the automatic diff.

Also for this edit summary you just duplicated what you added to the article. This is useless - the added text can be seen in the automatic diff. Instead, your summary should describe why you added it.

-- Lahwaacz (talk) 09:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The setup script does the fonts already: Point 0 Setting keymap and font Tpowa (talk)tpowa

Conky edit

Hi ! Regarding your question in the edit summary on Conky, IMO it should be kept as long as Conky/Tips and tricks and the main article are not fully updated with the new configuration. --Erus Iluvatar (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I can tell, the main article does not have any old syntax examples. And so does Conky/Tips and tricks, which contain mainly references to scripts that are just run by conky. The interface to these scripts is not influenced by the syntax change. In cases Conky/Tips and tricks has references to code that is affected, it is presented with the new syntax.
Do you approve:
1. Editing conky#Configuration file syntax changed into
== Configuration file syntax ==
Since Conky 1.10 (circa 2015Q2), configuration files have been written with a Lua syntax, like so:
conky.config = {
    -- Comments start with a double dash
    bool_value = true,
    string_value = 'foo',
    int_value = 42,
  conky.text = [[
  ${evaluated variable}
Pre 1.10 examples use old syntax, which looks like this:
  bool_value yes
  string_value 'foo'
  int_value 42
A Lua script is available to convert from the old syntax to the new Lua syntax on the GitHub repository. It is also at /usr/share/doc/conky-1.15.0_pre/convert.lua.
2. Deleting template:style from the beginning of Conky/Tips and tricks because, I think, it is sorted out.
3. Following Help:Discussion#Closing_a_discussion to stroke the title of Talk:Conky#Update_to_conky_1.10. And explaining with a mediawiki special:diff construct.
Regid (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sound good to me, I only found the time today to re-read properly the page, it seems like it indeed no longer deserves the style flag \o/ --Erus Iluvatar (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are 2 participants in this thread. We seem to agree what should be done. Which I followed. Following Help:Discussion#Closing_a_discussion and stroking the title of this thread. Though I will keep it around for a few months. Regid (talk) 11:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks a bunch, don't hesitate to remove this discussion after the customary week is passed if you don't want to keep it around longer :) --Erus Iluvatar (talk) 11:59, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

QPA notes

Hi there! I saw you demonstrating interest about the Qt Platform Abstraction framework in Special:Diff/761627. A while ago, I started rewriting that section to explain all the mystery variables. For your own enrichment, you can now find my notes under my user page if you are curious to learn more. I hope to return to those whenever I get the time (I still have a bunch of Qt GitHub tabs open on my laptop!). -- CodingKoopa (talk) 07:49, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]