User talk:Roy 043

From FreeCAD Documentation
Jump to navigation Jump to search

We are documenting V0.20

Question regarding: You write there "we are documenting V0.20", but the vast majority of users use FC 0.19.x. Now the Wiki hides an important feature for > 90% of the users. That doesn't see correct. --uwestoehr (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Please follow the standards!

Why did you do this?:

You talk about a standard. Where can I find this standard and who developed it? I cannot find a standard that defines that we use as text the same internal name of the referred Wiki page.

My opinion is: The Wiki is to inform people and not to bother them with internal names. Let's therefore please keep it simple.

--uwestoehr (talk) 02:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Uwe, there has been a discussion about these standards and the GuiCommand model page on the forum. And if you take a look at the PartDesign pages you will notice that in most cases the SeeAlso links follow the standard (which is actually the standard for links in general BTW). The standard is very much based on how previous editors have done things. It is not the opinion of a single person.
--Roy 043 (talk) 08:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer to GuiCommand model. However, I cannot see in this page that we must use for the link text use the internal name. I mean, look at the DocNav of PartDesign_AdditivePipe. For good reasons we us a simple text for the link and not the whole internal name. So why can't we do the same for the "See also field"? In fact the DocNav acts as a "see Also" too.
> The standard is very much based on how previous editors have done things. It is not the opinion of a single person.
That is clear, but what I don't see is that things can be changed. When it was not done right, or let's say "convenient for average reader/users", we can and even should change this.
--uwestoehr (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Math and Nowiki

I see that you change <math> tags to <nowiki>, for example here: But this is not the intended usage. nowiki is typographically spoken verbatim. But math follow the myth typography guidelines (half spaces around operators, italic variables etc.). So math should be used for equations. nowiki only for text to be unformatted.

(For information, you can directly copy TeX code into <math> and this can be created even with Word or Libreoffice nowadays.)

thanks and regards --uwestoehr (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I started the talk here, but you moved it to my talk page, why? --uwestoehr (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Torus etc.

Good day, looking at your edit:

Has this been changed very recently? With Version: 0.19.23756 I can create a Torus following the way that you removed. -- Hmk (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

You can create a torus with the Part Primitives command. That is correct. But you cannot start the Part Torus command via the Part Primitives command. So instructing the user that one of the ways to invoke the Part Torus command is to first start the Part Primitives command, does not make sense.
--Roy 043 (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


Dear Roy,

I do not appreciate that you removed my edit. If we want to succeed as a community we need a healthy ecosystem, from developers to educators. of course, YouTubers can ask for support from their viewers, and they do, but they can also encourage them to support developers. It should be a bidirectional relationship. if YouTubers feel welcomed, if they are treated like family then both will benefit. What you did cause a great deal of pain for a great member of our family and I hope you put the edit back. Thanks for your understanding.

Best, Foador

I have answered here: User_talk:Foadsf

Hi Roy,

Thanks a lot for the fixes to my edits and for bringing to my attention that I had edited an obsolete page :)

For, links to files on GitHub using the master branch aren't reliable (files move and code moves with time). Would you be okay with this form instead? src/Gui/ViewProvider.h (archived version)

Cheers, Suzanne Soy (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Let's avoid the problem and do away with the link altogether.
--Roy 043 (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear Roy,
This is Melwyncarlo from UserTalk. Anyway, I see you have deleted my edit this morning. That command really is faulty. While your reasoning was appropriate, I've added a small addendum notifying other users that the older command works on version 0.18. Note that it also works in 0.19. But, the new command, unfortunately, is not backward compatible. Most users use 0.18, so solely displaying the new command is misleading and confusing. I'd be glad if a note is added.
Thank you very much. Regards,
MFC Boy : the one and only! 12:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Ideally we would have several versions of the wiki. But that is not realistic since we simply lack volunteers willing to invest a serious amount of time. That is why we can and SHOULD only document the coming version. I will leave you addition even though it goes against this. I suppose you will remove it when V0.19 becomes final?
--Roy 043 (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello Roy,
I understand what you are saying; it is silly to have documentations for several versions. I agree, it is. But I'm just talking about adding small command script addendums on the go (like my example). I'm only saying this because some new commands DON'T work on older versions. And even after the v0.19 release, many will still be using v0.18 for quite some time. And so, macro commands run on the older versions would fail. I, myself, was frustrated when the new commands didn't work in my macros (which is being run on v0.18). Furthermore, hinting about the old commands would allow programmers to write code which is backward compatible.
- Melwyncarlo 05:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Please improve your Scripting paragraphs
Hi Melwyncarlo, I see that you are adding similar scripting paragraphs with the same code on many pages ...
... Another issue is that you are using several tricks to get a custom layout ...
--Roy 043 (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Roy, regarding the custom layout (apart from my Macro AeroFoil page), I'm using the basic layout; could you please be more specific as to where I've deviated from the styling norm? Thank you.
Also, the run commands are as it is. It's not about being fancy; those are the simplest copy-paste commands. I've stated that you select the objects, and then run those commands. That's all there is to it. It's like doing a Control+C and Control+V using Python.
I guess I could add the 'addSelection' method to all those run commands to show how to select the objects using Python. But, I had added the 'Selection Methods' link instead, which exemplifies the very same concept. What do you think? Should I add a sort-of mini-tutorial?
- Melwyncarlo 03:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Layout - Thank you for notifying me, Roy. I'll stop using the <br> on public documentation.
Scripting - I won't be doing it for any other pages. All those commands were about copy-pasting in different ways. Hence the similarity in code.
- Melwyncarlo 15:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Artwork Assembly

Hi Roy 043,

I don't get your point. There's no Assembly workbench bundled with recent FreeCAD versions (0.19.1, 0.20-24825) but Assembly3 is. Why shouldn't we extend a list of icons, that is hardly use for other wiki sites, with icons that are in use now for a similar task. That totally makes sense to me.

The FreeCAD version that I have used do not contain an Assembly folder which shows me that this is obsolete. Since Assembly3 is bundled now the Assembly folder should be re-added for the Assembly3 stuff or the asm3 instead.

How long do you want to keep obsolete stuff unchanged?