User talk:Red Leader

From FlightGear wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome

Welcome to the wiki. I have been following your first edits, and it seems you know your way around a wiki. I find the {{fixed}} template pretty much spotless for example, though I had used the tick mark (I am biased though; it is my own work. ;-) ).

Johan G (Talk | contribs) 18:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Johan! I've learnt quite a bit while looking inside wiki pages at the stuff you and other people have written. —Red Leader (Talk | contribs) 18:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

AI guided missiles (discussion moved to Talk:Scripted AI Missiles)

Hi Red Leader! I'm glad that you are working on the AI missile. Please, be aware that a lot of work has been done in terms of generalisation in Aircrat/m2000-5/Nasal/missile.nas ... Just before recoding fox2.nas(which is the original source of missile.nas), could you just take a little look :) Anyways there is still a lot to do :D.

5H1N0B1 (Talk | contribs) 10:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Like I said previously - this is exactly why it makes sense to factor out generic functionality so that we can come up with an aircraft/use-case agnostic module that lives outside any particular aircraft folder. Restructuring your code should not be too difficult, and would invite others to help develop the code. Keeping such code separate makes absolute sense. Just look at the way Gijs' ND code meanwhile evolved - despite originally being aircraft specific: we are now seeing people contributing to it who are not even interested in the 747 or Boeing aircraft. Thus, I would suggest to prioritize refactoring the code accordingly, so that it can live outside the m2000-5 directory. This isn't rocket science, and you don't even need to use OO - but it will make your lives so much easier. And please let's use the article's talk page to coordinate this - obviously, the wiki article is working pretty well - given that RedLeader is now working on this.--Hooray (talk) 11:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Git link vs. Template:SVN link

I think it might be slightly less confusing to only link to Git repositories with {{Git link}} and have a {{SVN link}} template for the SVN links. ;-)

A beginning of {{SVN link}} has been made. Feel free to improve it, my time might be a bit limited.

Johan G (Talk | contribs) 16:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Technically, the "right" thing would be introducing something like {{SCMLink|mode=git|host=gitorious|project=fg/fgdata|branch=master}} instead, which could handle different implementation (git/svn, mercurial etc)-we could also name it "RepoLink" to make it more obvious to people less familiar with SCMs.
This unsigned comment was added by Hooray (Talk | contribs) 17:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I moved a bit soon above. I was nearly done when you made your first save. Has to happen sometimes, I guess...
Generalizing would be a good idea I think, but do consider backward compatibility. I would suggest {{repo link}} for a name (short, no caps and easy to grasp its purpose from the name). Maybe a generalized template could be made and the older templates could be altered to the generalized template instead?
Also consider the amount of typing. If it is too much more easy to navigate to a page, copy the URL and edit the link label it might be too much typing and the template and hence a common format will not be used. At the other hand there could be copyable examples for each repo in the template documentation.
Johan G (Talk | contribs) 17:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I recently did some changes to the {{SVN link}} template (diff). Some of the are of them are explained on the talk page.
I also changed the style used when documenting it a little bit to conform with the other template documentation (I gone through all the documented templates a few months ago since the "style guide" in {{informative template}} had been rather stable for a long time).
In addition to that I wonder about a phrasing in the template documentations "Issues" section, see the talk page.
Johan G (Talk | contribs) 19:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Underscores in wiki links

I have noticed that you both use and add underscores in wiki links. They are not needed for regular wiki links. ;-)

External links and permanent links (permalinks) though are a different story.

Johan G (Talk | contribs) 20:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Text markup

Hi,

MediaWiki has its own markup for bold, italics etc. See Help:Formatting#Bold and italics ;-)

Cheers, Gijs (talk) 13:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Bad language

Thanks for that edit. As I am not a native English user I sometimes could be more aware of phrases and words to avoid.

Johan G (Talk | contribs) 17:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The obr and cbr templates

I have been absent for a few days and while going through diffs I found some new templates in this diff.

The {{obr}} and {{cbr}} templates are excellent, as well as names, documentation and their first uses. My only grudge is that I have not made them myself, lol.  ;-)


Just comparing these two examples also show how much easier they are on the eyes and fingers compared to when using <nowiki> tags:

<nowiki>{{</nowiki>'''template'''<nowiki>|</nowiki>mandatory<nowiki>|</nowiki>''optional'' <nowiki>|</nowiki>mandatory= <nowiki>|</nowiki>''optional=''<nowiki>}}</nowiki>
 {{obr}}'''template'''{{!}}mandatory{{!}}''optional'' {{!}}mandatory= {{!}}''optional=''{{cbr}}


Well done, and thanks! :-D

Johan G (Talk | contribs) 20:02, 20 March 2015 (EDT)

Could not help changing a few smaller things in them though. ;-)
Johan G (Talk | contribs) 21:59, 20 March 2015 (EDT)

Space Shuttle page gallery

Do we have any guidelines on that? Basically your edit screwed up the layout here - before all pics were commanded to the same size and nicely arranged in a table, now they are no longer at the same size and form a haphazard stack in my browser. So I'm not sure this is an improvement... Thorsten

I don't quite follow you, Thorsten. I know that they were arranged in a (pseudo-)table, but I think that <gallery> does a better job of it. I can hardly call the images as arranged in a gallery a "haphazard stack." As for size, the images are all the same size (as of this revision).
Could the issue be related to your web browser? It looks fine on Google Chrome 42 and Internet Explorer 11. Could you explain on how it looks wrong?
Regards,
Red Leader (Talk, contribs) 15:51, 19 May 2015 (EDT)
confirmed, looking perfectly fine here on google chromium and firefox (as of Lubuntu 14.04) --Hooray (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2015 (EDT)

Howto:Add blackout and redout settings

Thank you for this edit. I had some guests arriving and did not proofread nor finish the article off properly before saving and logging off.

Johan G (Talk | contribs) 11:45, 27 May 2015 (EDT)

Request for comments on repo links

I wonder if you have seen my later edits at Template talk:Repo link#Todo list? If not have a peek and voice any comments, concerns or opinions. ;-)

Johan G (Talk | contribs) 11:42, 29 May 2015 (EDT)

Double spacing

Hi,

not sure if that's on purpose, but what's the reason for changing perfectly fine single spaces to double spaces? For example your latest edits to FlightGear Newsletter August 2015. It messes up the history, making it harder to spot what's actually changed ;-)

Cheers, Gijs (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2015 (EDT)

Congratulations

Congratulations on getting administrator rights! :-D

Johan G (Talk | contribs) 15:49, 30 August 2015 (EDT)

removal of Qt5 entry in PUI article

Referring to: http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php?title=PUI&diff=89246&oldid=89243 Technically, you are right given the current form of the launcher, and its current focus/operating mode. However, it's been stated on the devel list, that this is supposed to evolve into a full Qt5 based GUI. And the PUI article having been initiated by myself, I am reluctant not to mention it, because I could easily be considered "biased" given that I prototyped the pui2canvas parser specifically in response to the Qt5 discussion on the forum/devel list.

Now, given the number of new segfaults that seem to point to the Qt5/FG integration layer, I guess that you may be right and that the Qt5 code in FG may still need some TLC - but it's pretty obvious that this is indeed supposed to be a prototype for implementing/evolving a Qt5-based UI in FG. Anyway, thanks for your other edits (and in fact all your housekeeping work on the wiki!) --Hooray (talk) 08:12, 3 November 2015 (EST)