User talk:Maffblaster

From Gentoo Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

About this board


Previous discussion was archived at User talk:Maffblaster/Archive 1 on 2016-09-29.

By clicking "Add topic", you agree to the terms of use for this wiki.

Pages with syntax highlighting errors

1
Charles17 (Talkcontribs)

Are you aware you are adding articles to the "Pages with syntax highlighting errors" category? See https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Category:Pages_with_syntax_highlighting_errors

Summary by Maffblaster

Created the Firmware category and placed UEFI inside of it. Firmware is categorically a subset under Core system.

Charles17 (Talkcontribs)

Maffblaster, could you please help? I created two new categories, and. Both are obviously mis-categorized in. Do you have a better idea where these new categories should go? Best Regards — Charles17

Maffblaster (Talkcontribs)

I need more information. What do you mean they are 'obviously miss-categorized'? Please provide some links and more information.

Charles17 (Talkcontribs)

Sorry for being unclear. The links I've put in my OP are indeed invisible. :-( Meanwhile I've moved the "Authentication" category to become a sub-category of the "Server and Security" category. ( https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Category:Server_and_Security ) For the "UEFI" category ( https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Category:UEFI ) I am not sure where it should go. "Core system", "Hardware", "Software", ... Best Regards — Charles17

Maffblaster (Talkcontribs)

UEFI is motherboard firmware, so perhaps we need a "Firmware" category with UEFI as a subset. Also BIOS and Linux firmware are also subsets.

Maffblaster (Talkcontribs)

I have created the Firmware category and have placed UEFI and BIOS articles within it. Firmware is now a subset of the Core system category (which is where it makes the most sense IMHO).

/etc/portage/package.mask

2
Summary by Maffblaster

Fixed mistake.

Charles17 (Talkcontribs)

Sorry, but what is the intention of your edit [1]?

I am not aware of anything putting examples into that file when syncing. Did I miss something? Or did you mean to refer to /usr/portage/profiles/package.mask? If so, I think a mention under »External resources« should be sufficient.

Maffblaster (Talkcontribs)

Oh, yes, I meant /usr/portage/profiles/package.mask. Looks like I edited the wrong article. My mistake! I'll move the edit. Thanks for looking out for the wiki.

Using formatting within titles?

3
SwifT (Talkcontribs)

Hi Maffblaster,

I notice that you often use syntax/formatting directives, like the variable one (<var>...</var>) inside titles. The recent one is within the title of a FileBox usage.

Do you think it makes sense to do so? I find it distracting, too much visual inefficiencies in a small space. In the past (not sure if it is still the case) it also messed up either linking to something (as the title is the anchor, and got the HTML code escaped as part of the anchor name) or searching for strings (as it got chopped up somehow).

Also, as this is formatting behavior, it could result in ugly visualizations if we change the CSS again, as we will look into regular paragraph formatting but not the titles and so.

Personally, I would prefer not to use formatting inside titles of any kind (*Box titles, section titles, page titles, etc.)

Maffblaster (Talkcontribs)

It makes sense to me to remain consistent across the wiki, but there's no reason for me to be picky about this. If you prefer no formatting inside the titles of *Box templates, I can live with that change. I was simply trying to be consistent with my use of HTML tags (such as <var> or <code> and wasn't counting the titles in *Box templates as visually disrupting as the section headers (I do entirely agree that we don't need or want formatting in the section headers). I don't think I've formatted any text the section headers for a few years time, but I have been definitely guilty of formatting titles of *Box templates. I'll stick with your preference on the *Box templates.

SwifT (Talkcontribs)

Yes, consistency is crucial. If we notice we're not being consistent, or there is ambiguity on the preference, we should document it in the guidelines. The above is my preference, if other users prefer formatting in the *Box titles, then I'll follow suit.

The same goes for linking for instance. Do you mind linking to wiki pages from within *Box titles? I find that distracting, and it gives me a less than professional impression.

Summary by Maffblaster

Ebuild repository should work (grammatically)

Feng (Talkcontribs)

I used the term "ebuilds repository" instead of "ebuild repository", is it correct?

Maffblaster (Talkcontribs)

It could probably be debated either way. I believe correct grammar would refer to the singular 'ebuild'. Keeping 'ebuild' (singular) would let the wiki remain consistent in the use of the term.

Consider 'source code repository'. Most repositories hold more than one source code file in the repository, but the repository doesn't use the term 'source codes'. Not sure if that is a good example to use or not, but it seems to make sense in my mind. :) Thanks for asking and I hope this helps.

Summary last edited by Dcljr 00:38, 11 June 2017 11 June

Sarcastic comment removed.

Dcljr (Talkcontribs)

Please remove the abusive language in this comment and avoid making remarks like that in the future.

Maffblaster (Talkcontribs)

"Abusive language"? I have a good working relationship with veremit. What is abusive about the comment?

Maffblaster (Talkcontribs)

I'll remove the comment. Turns out the internet doesn't understand sarcasm. The conversation was really between me and veremit. I highly doubt he took personal issues with my statement about his apparent laziness. :P

Sorry to sound like a meanie.

Dcljr (Talkcontribs)

I thought that might be the case, but since I've seen your "do it yourself" type of replies getting more and more exasperated, I wasn't sure. In any case, as you say, "the internet doesn't understand sarcasm", so it's probably best we don't have comments like that lying around. :)

account merge tar->thinrope

3
Thinrope (Talkcontribs)

Hello, posting as Thinrope :-)

Tar (Talkcontribs)

Hello, posting as Tar :-)

Maffblaster (Talkcontribs)

Thanks. I'll add it to my list of things todo.

Summary by Maffblaster

Nothing left to do.

Dcljr (Talkcontribs)

It seems that {{Invocation}}, which you created on June 30, 2016, more or less duplicates {{Cmd}}, which is a few years older and is being used on many more pages. Was this a mistake, or did you have a distinction in mind between the two templates?

Maffblaster (Talkcontribs)

The Invocation template is set to collapse and it useful for pasting --help output from commands, where Cmd does not default to collapsible.

Maffblaster (Talkcontribs)

Is there anything left to do here, Dcljr ?

Dcljr (Talkcontribs)

I guess not.

Summary by Maffblaster

Finished Talk template migration.

Dcljr (Talkcontribs)

I've created a simpler {{Talk}} template to replace this madness. [wink] I hope you will agree it's much more user-friendly. (I can convert current instances of the other templates to this new one as I have the time to devote to it.)

Dcljr (Talkcontribs)

Also considered making a new {{InfoBox talk stalled}} to be called as {{Talk|stalled}}, but I'm not sure if that would be useful. (And if so, how exactly it would be implemented.)

Maffblaster (Talkcontribs)

I don't think stalled is necessary. A discussion is binary in my opinion. Either open or closed (done). Can you make the Talk template support a date parameter for good measure? I think that's the only thing holding it back from matching the InfoBox version.

Dcljr (Talkcontribs)

Unless I'm missing something, the "date=" parameter seems to not be "actively supported" in any of the templates we're talking about: {{InfoBox talk open}}, {{InfoBox talk done}}, {{InfoBox stack}}, {{InfoBox}}… none of them reference "date" at all.

Of course, you can include a "date=" parameter when calling any of these templates, including {{Talk}}, but it's purely for the benefit of editors of the wikitext source: the templates don't do anything with it.

Now, if you want me to make {{Talk}} actually do something with the "date=" parameter, you'll have to tell me what that should be. [grin]

Maffblaster (Talkcontribs)

I realize that date never was implemented, but I think the idea for having it in the original templates as a parameter was to display the original date of the opening/closing of the discussion. Do you think you could implement that in the new Talk template, and then back port it to the old ones?

Dcljr (Talkcontribs)

Like this?

Dcljr (Talkcontribs)

Spotted in the wild.

Maffblaster (Talkcontribs)

Perfect. Looks good!

Dcljr (Talkcontribs)

FYI, I've finished going through all talk pages with open discussions marked with {{InfoBox talk open}} inside a {{InfoBox stack}} template, converting them all to the simpler {{talk}} format. There are still several dozen talk pages that only have closed discussions marked with {{InfoBox talk done}} that I have yet to convert. Thought you might like to know…

Dcljr (Talkcontribs)

Whoops, I guess I was wrong. I guess I only converted all the pages in the "Talk:" namespace (not "Help talk:", etc.). Oh, well. Eventually everything will get converted, in the fullness of time…

Maffblaster (Talkcontribs)

Don't exasperate yourself over it. :)

Noinclude to hide testcases

2
Summary by Maffblaster

Go for it!

Dcljr (Talkcontribs)

I see you have been using 'noinclude' tags to hide testcases illustrating usage errors (e.g., the first of three testcases at {{GenericCmd/testcases}}). (Or was that User:Astaecker?) I think it's better to show both correct and incorrect usage on the template page itself (explaining in the 'title' in cases of incorrect usage), so users of the template can better understand what they've done wrong (or just avoid making the mistake in the first place). For example, at {{Path}} I've showed 2 examples of correct usage and 3 examples of incorrect usage.

Granted, the current version of {{Testcase}} doesn't make it easy to distinguish between good and bad examples, but maybe adding a parameter like example=good|bad (which would, say, change the title bar background color) might help?

Maffblaster (Talkcontribs)

I don't remember doing that intentionally. Yes, it is better to show all usage cases on the template's main page. I like the idea of adding another parameter to the {{Testcase}} template, but I lack the time to do so right now. If you have the will, then go for it!