If you add a comment here, I will be notified by email.
You might like to add ~~~~ to insert your name and the date.
JohnBeckett 11:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi John, thanks for fixing all my bad english :-) Have Fun, bastl 09:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Re: Redirects
Yeah, I'm on the vim-l list, though I haven't been paying much attention to the messages so far.
I've only fixed the redirect pages that were easy to find and easy to fix. There are a few that I couldn't readily find the actual page the redirects should point to, so I left them alone.
About having redirects categorized, I really think they shouldn't be part of the VimTip category. Maybe a separate category for redirect pages? I wonder if there's a way to get a list of redirect pages without having to have them categorized.
So far I haven't been doing much except for the things that I can find that are "obvious". I figure once there's an established convention for deleting/merging tips, and for editing comments into the actual tip, etc, I'll try to do more.
-- Heptite 12:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Code formatting
You just updated VimTip346 - replacing the one space indents (which I tediously inserted) with the pre tag. I just followed one of the Vim_Tips_Wiki:Golden_Rules:
- Indent code sections with one space. This will make code look like <preformatted> text.
I prefer to use the pre tag, but chose to follow this rule. Maybe update rule?
Hansfn 06:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. I am embracing the "be bold" wiki policy, and am adopting the attitude that I know what I'm doing ... but in fact I've only been doing serious wiki stuff for a month, and I don't really know what's going on!
I took an interest in the script you edited because I've been thinking I need something like that to insert wiki tags around text. I started by noticing that the 'if' statements had lost their indenting ... then I wondered whether pre was better than space. I just posted my conclusion to the vim-l mailing list that in fact space has some big drawbacks - see the vim-l archive.
I will update the Golden Rules you mentioned.
BTW after changing the formatting of the tip, I tried to use it - doesn't work! I'm going to grapple with that shortly.
--JohnBeckett 08:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Thx for the quick action on the rules/guidelines. You didn't break the tip when you fixed the indent - it works for me. (See my talk page.)
--Hansfn 13:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey John, I noticed your writing small welcome messages to new users which is great for community building. Just want to let you know that there is
{{subst:welc}}. subst hardcopies the contents of the welc-template on the page. bastl 09:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Re: Categories
Hello! Thanks for pointing out the templates for vim scripts links and parent info on categories to me - I must have overlooked that. The vim script template surely makes much sense, considering the vim homepage might some day change it's url..
As for the categories, I just tried fill some missing descriptions to already existing categories - there are already tips linking to Templates and Completion categories. I agree they have overlapping meaning with Automatic Text Insertion although one may argue that they are more specific - I personally associate Templates more with automatic text expansion from predefined set of shortcuts a'la TextMate/SnippetsEmu and Completion more with Omni-completion/Intellisense feature. Perhaps it's a good idea to make both of them subcategories of Automatic Text Insertion.
While we are at it, here are some other categories which seem ambiguous to me: Help/Help Desk, Scripting/VimL, I18n/Fileformats/Encoding.
Santhalus 11:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hello. May I suggest we continue this conversation on the mailing list, or on categories talk page, and not on the talk pages of 5 different users ?
- --Luc Hermitte 11:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Santhalus. It's great that you took the trouble to respond to my comments. There is no golden wiki rule about how to use User Talk pages, but I'll mention what makes sense to me for the future. Since I started the conversation on your talk page, I think it would be good for you to reply there, and my reply to your reply to be there, etc. However, we are here now, so that will do.
- Luc's comment above is correct, although he might have welcomed your contributions first<g>. I will make one comment here, but let's agree to take any further discussion about categories preferably to the vim-l mailing list, or if you don't want to join the list, please post on the talk page of Vim Tips Wiki:Category guidelines.
- Anyway, my one comment is that some editors have added dummy [[Category:xxx]] entries, but IMHO we should apply quite a bit of thought before actually creating the xxx category.
- --JohnBeckett 12:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- That seemed more sensible to me too but I was not sure whether you get notified when I edit my own talk page. I see how it works now. I'm rather a newbie as far as Wiki and Vim are concerned, so please forgive me if I do something dumb :) All your comments are appreciated. As for the categories I think I have to get better overview of all the tips in general first, then I might come up with some suggestions.
- Santhalus 19:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Don't worry, you're not the only wiki-newbie here ^^'. Regarding the notifications, we're notified if we check the "Watch this page" checkbox when editing a page. And don't hesitate to share your thoughs on categories. A lot of work is still to be done. As I see it, as a first step, a first categorization will help identify duplicates. A little rework may be required after that, then a neater categories tree should emerge.
- BTW, I've initiated the Vim Tips Wiki talk:Category guidelines. I've copied there what as been said here, and on Santhalus's Talk page. This way, it would be easier to follow the discussion.
- --Luc Hermitte 13:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Re: Tip 1440
Sorry about messing up your script - that was my fault. I've had my eye on this page for a while and finally got around to fixing it up. Is the renaming thing pretty much done now that JohnBot is on the prowl, or do I need to be more careful about this in the future?
--Fritzophrenic 14:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- No problem! It tested my error handler very nicely. I have finished page renaming for now. In general, I would far prefer people to "be bold" and do things they think would be an improvement, so the fact that occasionally there will be a conflict with what I'm doing is fine by me.
- Now that the major renaming has been done, I'm not sure about the merit of renaming individual tips to slightly improve the title, . There are plenty more tips that should be renamed, but I think it would be better to prepare suggested names in bulk, and review them on vim-l. However, if you want to rename a few more, go for it.
- --JohnBeckett 09:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
User:Shiran009
You should consider blocking that account since it looks like all the edits made are spam. GHe (Talk) 04:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks - I just took your advice. I would have done it earlier but I was puzzled by how the mechanism works. --JohnBeckett 05:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
corp-mule's post corrections
Thanks for the help John. After I sent the error report, I figured out how to change my post. I had already re-formatted it. But I guess your changes are okay.
I'd really like to make the font monospace. Do you know how I could do this?
Thanks again, corp-mule
- I think you've found the answer, because I see that you've used <tt>...</tt> on your page now. --JohnBeckett 10:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
VimTip857: Syntax highlighting
I was about to rename this tip to "Different syntax highlighting within regions of a file" or something similar, because the tip is NOT a general-purpose syntax highlighting tip as the title would imply, but instead addresses the very specific (and very useful) ability to include a syntax only for specific syntax regions in a file. For example, I used the concept in this tip to apply the vim.vim syntax file to <pre> sections in the wikipedia syntax file I use to edit tips on this site.
Anyway, when I checked the "what links here" page for the tip, I saw it on User:JohnBeckett/Titles_that_do_not_need_to_be_changed. Your explanation of this page says that "there are many doubtful titles in titles that do not need to be changed, but I thought they were good enough at this stage." Any specific reasons you think the tip should keep its current title?
--Fritzophrenic 17:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. Good point - maybe I should remove those links on User:JohnBeckett/Titles_that_do_not_need_to_be_changed.
I have no reason for wanting any of the titles - please feel welcome to make any changes. My only reservation is a slight concern about what we'd end up with if we just renamed tips without much thought. You know this, but I'll spell it out. If a tip called T1 is renamed to T2, and then T2 is later renamed to T3, the result is that we would have pages T1, T2 and T3. T1 would redirect to T2, and T2 would redirect to T3, and T3 would be the tip.
That mechanism (of keeping links to renamed pages) is great when a wiki is in a stable condition with good titles. But, despite our recent renaming project, we could probably find 200 tips with slightly silly titles.
I'm probably agonising about this too much, but I wonder whether it would be better to do another renaming project. That is, discuss proposed changes somewhere, then do the changes in bulk (to avoid naming T1 to T2, then later to T3, etc).
I'm definitely going on about this too much! Please do whatever renaming you want. If we do end up with a bunch of useless links, I can delete them.
--JohnBeckett 23:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Deletion of "Delete everything but the first n fields in a CSV"
I noticed that you recently cleared out the "to be deleted" tips. Good call, but I am a little concerned about the tip, "Delete everything but the first n fields in a CSV". Now, I agree with this deletion, and indeed suggested it in the first place, but I thought it would generate at least a little discussion.
I'm not sure what the deletion policy is (or if we even have one), but I nominated this tip for deletion only 2.5 hours before you deleted it. I don't think that is enough time to ensure that any disagreement is discussed.
I'm not sure if you want to undo the deletion or anything, but I think in the future there should probably be some minimum time period to wait before deleting a tip nominated for deletion, except in the case of spam.
--Fritzophrenic 16:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)