JohnBeckett (talk | contribs) (→Comments: thoughts) |
(script type could be useful, agree meaningful categories difficult/redundant) |
||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
::I've given things a little thought. I really like the idea of a "Lists of scripts" category, with this moved to [[Script:List of R Project scripts]]. I think it make sense to also categorize the script pages themselves. ftplugin, plugin, syntax, etc. would make good categories, as well as "R Project". I wonder if there is a way to limit these categories to scripts, or if we may have collisions with categories used for tips? I'm thinking in particular about [[:Category:Automated Text Insertion]]. Or would this get too confusing/make too much overlap with the "list of" pages? The "list of" pages could also appear in appropriate categories. Maybe it's time to take it to a mailing list for input from the community? --[[User:Fritzophrenic|Fritzophrenic]] 00:49, March 6, 2010 (UTC) |
::I've given things a little thought. I really like the idea of a "Lists of scripts" category, with this moved to [[Script:List of R Project scripts]]. I think it make sense to also categorize the script pages themselves. ftplugin, plugin, syntax, etc. would make good categories, as well as "R Project". I wonder if there is a way to limit these categories to scripts, or if we may have collisions with categories used for tips? I'm thinking in particular about [[:Category:Automated Text Insertion]]. Or would this get too confusing/make too much overlap with the "list of" pages? The "list of" pages could also appear in appropriate categories. Maybe it's time to take it to a mailing list for input from the community? --[[User:Fritzophrenic|Fritzophrenic]] 00:49, March 6, 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::I believe categories are global across all namespaces, so the only way to limit a category would be to give it an obvious name like <tt>Category:Scripts syntax</tt> or whatever. However, I cannot see the point because I have found it very hard to apply useful categories to many tips (except for easy ones like Searching and Folding), and I do not see how it would help to have a category of, say, ftplugin scripts. I think a more achievable approach would be to have a list of all scripts ([[Script:List of all scripts]]) with the text from the ScriptComments template shown (one line per script, similar to [[Vim Tips Wiki:Imported tips]], but only the script number and brief description, not author). I could use a script to build that page and update it each month. When we get more than a few hundred in the list, we could revisit the idea of applying categories, if any useful pattern can be discerned. By all means try the mailing list, but I think we are going to have to decide ourselves because the only people likely to have useful thoughts are those who will notice this discussion anyway. In a few days I will move this page (I suppose I'd better keep a redirect), and will see how my thought above ("rework Vim scripts") looks. [[User:JohnBeckett|JohnBeckett]] 23:25, March 6, 2010 (UTC) |
:::I believe categories are global across all namespaces, so the only way to limit a category would be to give it an obvious name like <tt>Category:Scripts syntax</tt> or whatever. However, I cannot see the point because I have found it very hard to apply useful categories to many tips (except for easy ones like Searching and Folding), and I do not see how it would help to have a category of, say, ftplugin scripts. I think a more achievable approach would be to have a list of all scripts ([[Script:List of all scripts]]) with the text from the ScriptComments template shown (one line per script, similar to [[Vim Tips Wiki:Imported tips]], but only the script number and brief description, not author). I could use a script to build that page and update it each month. When we get more than a few hundred in the list, we could revisit the idea of applying categories, if any useful pattern can be discerned. By all means try the mailing list, but I think we are going to have to decide ourselves because the only people likely to have useful thoughts are those who will notice this discussion anyway. In a few days I will move this page (I suppose I'd better keep a redirect), and will see how my thought above ("rework Vim scripts") looks. [[User:JohnBeckett|JohnBeckett]] 23:25, March 6, 2010 (UTC) |
||
| + | ::::I was thinking that ftplugin, plugin, etc. might be good categories, because I understand that this information is lacking from many of the scripts on vim.org; it is just assumed that people will know what to do with them or how to install them. I can see how creating useful categories like "snippets plugins" might be beyond our grasp at the moment, but I think that a basic installation aid like putting script pages in a category that indicates what type of plugin they are, with information in the category description on how to install plugins of this type, would be fairly easy and would fit in well with the current purpose of the Script: pages. With the "list of" pages I guess that more meaningful categories would be fairly redundant and less powerful. With "list of" pages, we can add brief descriptions of each script, and a link to the script itself ''and'' the comments, rather than just a link to the wiki page. We could also mark scripts as unmaintained, or add scripts with no corresponding wiki page, much easier. --[[User:Fritzophrenic|Fritzophrenic]] 14:59, March 8, 2010 (UTC) |
||
[[Category:VimTipProposed]] |
[[Category:VimTipProposed]] |
||
Revision as of 14:59, 8 March 2010
Since it is futile to search http://www.vim.org for R-related plugins, I'd suggest to collect them here.
Related Plugins
Evaluate R Code
- R.vim : Send R code from a VIM buffer to R comments
- GNU R : facilitates work with GNU R statistical package comments
- Vim-R-plugin2 : Plugin to work with R comments
Mac OS
- R-MacOSX : Evaluate R (www.r-project.org) code from Vim in Mac OS X comments
- R.vim : Execute R-code from vim on Mac OS X comments
Windows
Syntax & Indentation
Comments
Wow.
Normally, we don't create pages like this. But in this case, I think it makes a lot of sense. It certainly would not be easy to find any 'R' related tips on vim.org without a collection page of some sort.
This leads to an interesting problem though. I'm sure there are a lot of scripts on vim.org that are hard to find without a category of some sort. Perhaps the wiki is a good place to categorize scripts? We now have the script comment pages, perhaps the best way to collect scripts into categories is by using wiki categories on the script comment pages? Or maybe we should create "script category" pages, like this one, similar to the "List of {whatever}" pages that wikipedia has, and link both the script on vim.org and the comment page here on the wiki.
Thoughts?
--Fritzophrenic 16:24, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I think it's a good idea to keep a few pages like this. I haven't thought this through, but I wonder if this page should be at Script:List of R Project scripts and in Category:Lists of scripts? Perhaps I could rework Vim scripts so that its current contents are in Script:Best plugins and Script:Featured scripts, and it has links to each of the "List of" scripts pages with some explanation for how the scripts are organised. JohnBeckett 00:35, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
- I've given things a little thought. I really like the idea of a "Lists of scripts" category, with this moved to Script:List of R Project scripts. I think it make sense to also categorize the script pages themselves. ftplugin, plugin, syntax, etc. would make good categories, as well as "R Project". I wonder if there is a way to limit these categories to scripts, or if we may have collisions with categories used for tips? I'm thinking in particular about Category:Automated Text Insertion. Or would this get too confusing/make too much overlap with the "list of" pages? The "list of" pages could also appear in appropriate categories. Maybe it's time to take it to a mailing list for input from the community? --Fritzophrenic 00:49, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
- I believe categories are global across all namespaces, so the only way to limit a category would be to give it an obvious name like Category:Scripts syntax or whatever. However, I cannot see the point because I have found it very hard to apply useful categories to many tips (except for easy ones like Searching and Folding), and I do not see how it would help to have a category of, say, ftplugin scripts. I think a more achievable approach would be to have a list of all scripts (Script:List of all scripts) with the text from the ScriptComments template shown (one line per script, similar to Vim Tips Wiki:Imported tips, but only the script number and brief description, not author). I could use a script to build that page and update it each month. When we get more than a few hundred in the list, we could revisit the idea of applying categories, if any useful pattern can be discerned. By all means try the mailing list, but I think we are going to have to decide ourselves because the only people likely to have useful thoughts are those who will notice this discussion anyway. In a few days I will move this page (I suppose I'd better keep a redirect), and will see how my thought above ("rework Vim scripts") looks. JohnBeckett 23:25, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
- I was thinking that ftplugin, plugin, etc. might be good categories, because I understand that this information is lacking from many of the scripts on vim.org; it is just assumed that people will know what to do with them or how to install them. I can see how creating useful categories like "snippets plugins" might be beyond our grasp at the moment, but I think that a basic installation aid like putting script pages in a category that indicates what type of plugin they are, with information in the category description on how to install plugins of this type, would be fairly easy and would fit in well with the current purpose of the Script: pages. With the "list of" pages I guess that more meaningful categories would be fairly redundant and less powerful. With "list of" pages, we can add brief descriptions of each script, and a link to the script itself and the comments, rather than just a link to the wiki page. We could also mark scripts as unmaintained, or add scripts with no corresponding wiki page, much easier. --Fritzophrenic 14:59, March 8, 2010 (UTC)
- I believe categories are global across all namespaces, so the only way to limit a category would be to give it an obvious name like Category:Scripts syntax or whatever. However, I cannot see the point because I have found it very hard to apply useful categories to many tips (except for easy ones like Searching and Folding), and I do not see how it would help to have a category of, say, ftplugin scripts. I think a more achievable approach would be to have a list of all scripts (Script:List of all scripts) with the text from the ScriptComments template shown (one line per script, similar to Vim Tips Wiki:Imported tips, but only the script number and brief description, not author). I could use a script to build that page and update it each month. When we get more than a few hundred in the list, we could revisit the idea of applying categories, if any useful pattern can be discerned. By all means try the mailing list, but I think we are going to have to decide ourselves because the only people likely to have useful thoughts are those who will notice this discussion anyway. In a few days I will move this page (I suppose I'd better keep a redirect), and will see how my thought above ("rework Vim scripts") looks. JohnBeckett 23:25, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
- I've given things a little thought. I really like the idea of a "Lists of scripts" category, with this moved to Script:List of R Project scripts. I think it make sense to also categorize the script pages themselves. ftplugin, plugin, syntax, etc. would make good categories, as well as "R Project". I wonder if there is a way to limit these categories to scripts, or if we may have collisions with categories used for tips? I'm thinking in particular about Category:Automated Text Insertion. Or would this get too confusing/make too much overlap with the "list of" pages? The "list of" pages could also appear in appropriate categories. Maybe it's time to take it to a mailing list for input from the community? --Fritzophrenic 00:49, March 6, 2010 (UTC)