User talk:Red Leader

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)

Not exactly the same thing, but thank you very much, Red Leader, for telling me that “aircraft” never takes an “s”, even in plural. I have been doing this mistake for years and would maybe never have learnt the correct way without your comment. Now, I understand why FGData has directories named Aircraft and Airports. Weird thing!

--Rominet (talk) 07:30, 24 March 2016 (EDT)

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)

Nasal positioned APIs (navcache)

Referring to the commit/change at [1]. I appreciate what you are doing there, but I would really suggest not to spread our Nasal API docs across multiple articles. The NavCache article documents an underlying implementation detail of the NavDB, i.e. it being cached using a very fragile SQLite layer, so it is mainly about the "cache", but not the functionality provided on top of it, i.e. the NavDB itself. And in fact, at some point, we were not even using/having such a caching layer, and we may not even have the cache in its current form in the future given how this has crippled the FG experienced for literally hundreds of FG users. So I would suggest not to split up our docs by adding useful info to related articles. For instance, at some point we had another attempt at "caching" using the metakit dependency - which is meanwhile gone. Which is to say that the cache is an implementation detail, that may be subject to change sooner or later (hopefully just subject to fixing), but the public/external APIs are unlikely to change in any major way, because end-users rely on those. And one of the most significant feats you have pulled off with your Nasal docs article is consolidating all the info in a single place, which makes it much easier to update things in the future, especially should things change at some point, especially because of all the templates you are using. So I really vote for having a single monolithic article for the time being, i.e. it may be better to either refer to the reference section you created, or include it using a template instead - to ensure that we don't violate the DRY-principle but still have everything neatly encapsulated (imagine fixing up the API template to link back to tons of unrelated articles).--Hooray (talk) 10:49, 10 November 2015 (EST)

Hi Hooray,

I understand that it may not be the best solution for now, but they won't do any harm being there for now. They can be removed when they have been documented at Nasal library. In my research into airportinfo() and airwaysRoute() , it became apparent to me that both the functions which are based around FGPositioned and those that use waypoint, airport, et al ghost objects need documenting. Also, I plan that Nasal library will contain just the global functions, with subpages containing various namespace documentation (e.g., Nasal library/math).

Regards,

Red Leader (Talk, contribs) 15:55, 15 November 2015 (EST)

I just suggested things to be moved again - not sure what Gijs, Johan etc are thinking - but I would not expect such Nasal APIs to be documented there. If you want to keep it there, my suggestion would be to move it to a template and include it for the time being? --Hooray (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2016 (EST)

Instant cquotes and youtube videos

thank you, I think, I must have been using an outdated version of the script on the other computer then (thinking about adding the version number to the title bar of the dialog now).--Hooray (talk) 06:24, 13 November 2015 (EST)

updating articles to use repo link templates

Thanks for all your work related to this (also to Johan), but I think it is too tedious to manually update all those articles. We do have the possibility to run a wikimedia bot (python script) on the server, and Gijs/Simon have done that in the past, so that might be a better option to update most articles that contain gitorious/forum links to use the corresponding templates instead. We could discuss the specifics at the village pump. (PS: I was referring to RAW gitorious URLs [2], not just references to old templates)--Hooray (talk) 10:18, 15 November 2015 (EST)

Phi screenshot category

Regarding this edit comment.

I would wait a little further with creating a new category.

To not have too sparsely populated categories, making it harder to find an image, I usually put images in a more general category at first. I rarely begin to consider a new category until there at least somewhere between three to seven images.

—Johan G (Talk | contribs) 22:26, 16 November 2015 (EST)

I actually agree with Red Leader here: Phi is being actively maintained and developed by a core developer, and Torsten has literally posted dozens of screen shots on the forum/devel list. While Phi is de-facto undocumented for the time being, the corresponding screenshots would be useful on the wiki, and could help bootstrap a corresponding Phi article.

And Torsten has invited people to get involved in creating such an article on the wiki. I started this at some point (using a bunch of related quotes from the archives), but prioritized other things, due to the Qt5 effort, which seemed more relevant at the time - given how things have changed meanwhile (unlike Phi, Qt5 code is causing segfaults and raising a number of interesting questions), the Qt5 article may not be as important as having a dedicated Phi article, including a category for related screen shots/images.

BTW: How are new categories created-I actually tried to do that a few times when I uploaded images without an appropriate category, but did not seem to succeed ? Is that something that only Gijs and you can do, or can we help with that ?

--Hooray (talk) 05:05, 17 November 2015 (EST)

FlightGear Newsletter December 2015 cleaning

Thanks for cleaning the December newsletter! You did a terrific job there! ;-)

Gijs (talk) 06:59, 4 January 2016 (EST)

Agreed, thank you very much. --Hooray (talk) 12:43, 4 January 2016 (EST)

Editing archived discussion pages and user pages

Unless some functionality is broken I much prefer that you refrain from editing archived discussion pages.

I could say the same about user pages but I see that you are rather gentle, so I do not mind that all too much (at least in regard to my user pages).

—Johan G (Talk | contribs) 07:05, 8 March 2016 (EST)

template redirects

thanks for spotting [3] - I just checked the docs, you are right, it's more difficult than I thought: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Template#Redirection --Hooray (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2016 (EDT)

Newsletter

Please publish it ;) It's September! Legoboyvdlp (talk) 08:52, 6 September 2017 (EDT)