Meaning of comment: location in the article

The meaning of a code comment is mentioned in Help:Reading#Regular_user_or_root, which is before Help:Reading#Append.2C_add.2C_create.2C_edit linked throughout the wiki (the Create, Edit and similar redirects). -- Alad (talk) 14:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

And what is the problem? We can either avoid the forward reference ("Append to ~/path/to/file) in Help:Reading#Regular_user_or_root or keep the root prompts in Help:Reading#Append.2C_add.2C_create.2C_edit. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 19:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The idea was that linking textedit doesn't mention comments or root prompts. By itself however, the structure of Help:Reading makes sense (if the concept of root prompt is known, demonstrating how to edit system files is easy). Perhaps we should simply generalize the redirects, pointing them to Help:Reading ? -- Alad (talk) 14:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

When an article invites to install some packages (grammar)

This is a very minor grammar issue regarding [1] and [2] which however I found interesting enough to start a discussion on WordReference.com, where it turned out that apparently native English speakers do perceive the omission of "you" (or perhaps "one") as incorrect.

I'm the one to blame for that paragraph, and I've probably disseminated that kind of wording to several other places in the wiki, so if a native English speaker wants to intervene I'll be glad to fix the wiring in my brain.

-- Kynikos (talk) 15:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

end of "Regular user or root" section

right at the end where it says "Append to ~/path/to/file:" and then gives a code block:

(1) isn't this not DRY, since (i think) the same code block was given above?

(2) isn't there a missing end-quote at the end of this (second) code block?

Nicholashh (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I fixed the typo, thanks. But the same code example is intentional, it is not a duplication due to the introduction "Append to ~/path/to/file:" which emphasizes the difference from the previous example. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Nicholashh, however me too I don't see it as a duplication of content: the purpose of that code block is not to show how to define a command alias, but to highlight the ambiguity of #'s function, i.e. the "alias" command may even become obsolete somehow one day, but the meaningfulness of the example wouldn't change. Closed. -- Kynikos (talk) 07:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)