User talk:Roy 043

From FreeCAD Documentation
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Roy, please speak to me before you just do things! (e.g. send me a PM via the forum) This page also holds the press text and you just deleted it before I can now start writing to journalists. Please bring it back

thanks and regards--uwestoehr (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

FEM ResultsPurge

Why did you just reverted my changes in FEM ResultsPurge? A talk before would have been nice. I changed this because I got feedback from users testing FEM on my request. They found it strange to have a "usage" by a single numbered item. They found it also cluttered since that a command can be called also by the menu and shortcuts is clear and I should use a simple sentence. This is what I did. Now I see you reverted it.

You now, for me the most important thing is that users get the idea and like to consult the Wiki. And as it was and now it, is just technical and unnecessarily complicated.

--uwestoehr (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The shoe is on the other foot. This is NOT the way to change how to wiki is organized.
--Roy 043 (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
What do you mean with the shoe? What is the issue in your opinion? How is the Wiki organized, weaning where is this described? if there are rules, they must be available for everybody.
I think feedback from the community is very welcome. We often follow some rules others don't understand. For example yesterday i had an interview with a YouTuber about the new release and he complained about that we use often technical terms in the Wiki instead of something that is quickly understandable. For example in FEM_PostFilterDataAtPoint In the "see Also" we always write the prefix "FEM". This is clear to the user. hew wants to see there a description of the features to look at not technical terms. His example was the [Part_SectionCut] feature that has the prefix "Part" everywhere and it confused him. I explained him. However, he is right, as user you just need to know who a feature is working and the name one needs to use for Python scripting. And not every user has the change to talk to a developer ;-).
I did not yet change according to his feedback. However, I think we should not ignore our community. His channel has 30k subscribers and his feedback is therefore also some of the community.
--uwestoehr (talk) 12:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I also contacted David69 accordingly: User_talk:David69#About_usage_of_technical_terms
Let's please discuss this in the Forum. I will open a new thread there.
--uwestoehr (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


Hi Roy, can you please either delete the page, or better, to keep its history rename it to FEM_MaterialEditor? The point is that only FEM_MaterialEditor is found by the What's This? feature. thanks and regards --uwestoehr (talk) 00:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Hole Circle -> Bolt Circle

Hi Roy,

you are right the bolt is the word in the menu text, but is there a term as bolt circle? It is plain to see that the tool itself uses hole circle, which makes sense to me. And I hope you agree.

My intention was to have the correct term in the wiki, at least. But now it seems that I have taken the second step first...

What is the best way to get this problem solved?

--FBXL5 (talk) 11:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Dear FBXL5
You may not know this, but I have invested a lot of time trying to improve the menu texts and tooltips (which in this case contain usage instructions) of a large (30+) set of Extension tools. Edi (Edi271), the programmer who created them, did not pay enough attention to that aspect. There were a lot of inconsistencies in the source code itself, as well as in the Wiki.
I agree that "Bolt Circle" sounds strange, but so does "Hole Circle". And, yes, the names of these commands can be a little strange as well, and do not always match the menu text. What you see now is not the ideal solution, but the best compromise I could come up with.
Having spent quite a few days on this, I would prefer not to see ad-hoc edits. So if you want to improve things then please also update the source code (note that some texts occur multiple times there).
--Roy 043 (talk) 10:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought you overlooked it. Word-for-word translation "Lochkreis" is an often used expression for the circle to place holes on for circular patterns, but I have never heard of "Bolzenkreis" oder "Schraubenkreis" and so didn't have a look at Leo. Shame on me, Leo knows the expression "Bolt Circle".
Despite the fact that I have nearly no experience in editing other people's code, do you think ad-hoc edits of Edi's code is a good idea? I don't want to get told off by either Edi or you for making things worse.
--FBXL5 (talk) 12:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
What do you mean by Leo?
Regarding the source code: I was quite disappointed to see that new Extension tools, added after my edits, suffer from the very same issues. And as a consequence I have more or less given up on this. But if you want to have a go at improving the TechDraw Extension tools GUI texts, and keeping them consistent (in the source code and the Wiki): please do.
--Roy 043 (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
In the meantime I tried to have at least a look at the extensions' source code, but I couldn't even find it. I tried to find them in freecad_source.tar.gz a few minutes ago, but failed again...
Leo is an online dictionary:
--FBXL5 (talk) 08:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The files are:

--Roy 043 (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I have a GitHub account now, but I'll need quite a long time to get behind its "secrets". Furthermore I didn't realise that these extensions are cpp files. My cpp knowledge is even more restricted than my Python knowledge, but I'm working on both.

BTW - Thanks for cleaning up my tutorial pages. I didn't expect that they left so much space for improvements. I'll use them as templates for things to come.

--FBXL5 (talk) 10:21, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Tutorial KinematicSkeleton: "Tried to improve a little." You did, thanks!

--FBXL5 (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki update (fine-tuning)

Hi Roy,

Saw that : Please don't go faster than dev. I'll take care of that when PR is merged (along update of Preferences and Release_Notes). This is a problem that you do it right now because if the PR that adds preference never get merged, information is lost.

Dear OpenBrain,
OK, I'll undo my edit.
A request:
When creating documentation related to a PR that is experimental or a work in progress, please consider adding {{Page_in_progress}} at the top of the Wiki code. This instructs other people working on the Wiki to wait with further actions. See WikiPages for more information.
BTW 1: The history of Wiki pages is stored and old information can be retrieved.
BTW 2: You need to sign your messages with the 'squiggle' button at the top of the text area for the message system to work properly, otherwise you are not notified when somebody answers your messages.
--Roy 043 (talk) 08:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Roy, Thx for reverting. I don't understand well your remark. Actually I coded the original PR with a parameter switch. Then ones asked for a GUI preference so I added it in a different PR (not merged yet). Notice that the preference just changes the said switch in a graphical manner, so information here won't become obsolete when PR is merged, eventually just duplicated. ;) Anyway I would have deleted the information in Fine-tuning when new PR is merged and documented ;)
BTW 1 : I don't want to revert your changed brutally, prefer to discuss it
BTW 2 : As you may know I'm not the most skilled one with MediaWiki. Will improve next time
--OpenBrain (talk) 16:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
You may not realize this, but two translators have already updated their translation of the Fine-tuning page twice in relation to this feature. And they will have to update their work a third time when the text is removed from the page. The text is short, so in that sense it is not a big problem. But I am looking for ways to reduce the workload for translators, or at least make things as efficient as possible. And to avoid unnecessary work for other translators is the reason why I, prematurely, removed the text.
Marking a page as a 'work in progress' can be useful in some cases, but indeed would not have been possible here as we are dealing with separate PRs.
--Roy 043 (talk) 09:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Roy, it's merged and documented everywhere it has to be. Let you now delete from here if you're OK (I don't know if it's better to delete again, or revert your revert). Thx for the hard work on the Wiki
--OpenBrain (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


Why did you change this image to a larger version? What is in your opinion better with the new image you uploaded? I have the problem that on my 15 inch laptop I often use it is hard to read the Wiki pages, especially because images are too large. Therefore I consequently only depict what the user has to see to understand the functionality. Thus please compare


The first image is smaller and only contains the dialog itself. The Close button and the tabbar are waste of space since all dialogs have these, so dialog-specific info is provided for the costs of a larger size. Therefore I think the image I uploaded improved the situation.

thanks and regards Uwe --uwestoehr (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Dear Uwe,
I disagree that the button can be removed from the screen shot. It is essential part of the task panel. Other task panels have different buttons for example. I have uploaded this screenshot twice. The 2nd version of the image has clearly visible frames. That is another important element that is missing from your version.
But I have to admit that this 2nd discussion about this image and this page really, really annoys me. To put an end to it I have now decided to remove the image from the page. That way we both don't get what we want.
--Roy 043 (talk) 09:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
>It is essential part of the task panel. Other task panels have different buttons for example.
But why do you think so? I have to work at work on a laptop screen and it is sometimes hard to read the Wiki pages because of the large images. Often there cnnot be done anything, but an OK/Cancel/Abort/Stop etc button is not providing info about the feature. Therefore it can be omitted an I try to omit them because it improves the readability on laptop screens.
> But I have to admit that this 2nd discussion about this image and this page really, really annoys me.
What discussion are you referring to? I cannot see a discussion page for the image
> To put an end to it I have now decided to remove the image from the page. That way we both don't get what we want.
Boah, this is childish! Who are we? Playgroud kids or adult developers who should be able to discuss, have disagreements and find a consensus?
I told you why I see a topic differently and you don't want to take this and replay but be immediately annoyed. I don't understand this. I mean i would understand when i would have reverted something. But no I just contacted you here, that's all.
--uwestoehr (talk) 13:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I was referring to a previous discussion in the forum. It is that discussion where you accused others of playing 'pingpong' (while you were still holding the bat behind your back so to speak). Do you remember? If you want to use the adjective 'childish' you may want to consider your own attitude then and now. I know that your are very stubborn, and do not easily accept the ideas of others. I can point to another discussion in the forum that can attest to that. You even once went so far as to undo an edit that fixed a grammatical error in one of your contributions. You equate your own ideas with progress, reaching a consensus with somebody who thinks like that is impossible.
Note that removing the image has the additional advantage that you are no longer tempted to 'beautify' the layout...
--Roy 043 (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
> I was referring to a previous discussion in the forum. It is that discussion where you accused others of playing 'pingpong' (while you were still holding the bat behind your back so to speak). Do you remember?
Maybe the best is that you write me a private message via the forum. I don't remember this. Sure, I made mistakes and I will do so. I am just a human. But how can I become better when nobody tells me when he is upset? Please shout immediately, not months later. So please send me a private message with the discussions you refer to or post them here.
What I remember was a discussion that you were opposed to use the <math> tag. I argues that the Wikimedia guys introduced it for good reasons. I use it heavily in the Wikipedia and needed it on some Wiki pages here too. And I also explained you that there is no need to change every formula. Time by time people will use it when it is convenient. In this discussion you were rude since you just reverted my additions. I also did not lie that you did not reply to my technical argument but argues towards rules and that things have always been so. But OK, this has been resolved and that's why one has to speak about. That time I was pissed and I immediately contacted you. I think that is the way it should happen, shouting immediately and then draw a line and focus forward.
> Note that removing the image has the additional advantage that you are no longer tempted to 'beautify' the layout...
But this is what I mean with childish. You made a change and I only asked you why. As result you removed an image to that the readers don't have any image at all. This is not adult behavior. We don't write the Wiki for us developers, but the the readers. Every image is better than no image of course! And I don't see what is wrong to debate if it is necessary to include the OK/Close buttons? I also cannot understand why you insult me for this:
> I know that your are very stubborn
This is insulting because you don't know me. We never had a chat or so, not even shared a private message. And calling someone stubborn because one does not like to debate is not OK. I try to argue with valid arguments from my experience and knowledge.
So please let's have a normal conversation and of course please put the image back. You dont need to like me, I think when we both have the reader's experience in focus we can work together. I mean we only have to ask yourselves, what is the nicest layout, does the layout fit to different screen, is the info suficcient to understand a feature, outdated, too long, too short etc.
--uwestoehr (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
OK, you have called me childish and now you call me rude (BTW you misrepresent that discussion). Nice going. Are you really serious about wanting to have a constructive discussion?
But in the end there is an impasse. You just repeat your arguments. And I reject them.
The fact that you, personally, use a small screen carries little weight. What about all the pages that are much, much longer than the page we are discussing? How do you deal with those if you don't like scrolling? Screens range from smart phones to 4K, taking 15" as a reference is then rather arbitrary.
I, and I think most other editors, will typically include the full dialog or task panel in a screenshot, because it is simply the most obvious choice. It is almost bizarre that you insist on chopping off the buttons.
Bottom line for me is that the page in its original state was more than good enough. And your edit did not improve it in any way. Apart from the image, the layout you introduced was simply appalling.
For the record the discussion I was referring to:
And you used the word 'pingpong' when you undid Vocx's edit:
--Roy 043 (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
> For the record the discussion I was referring to:
Thanks! I read it now completely again. vocx and you made the point that images are important despite that they are not translatable. Meanwhile I think that too and that's what discussions are about - to share opinions and experiences and thus to learn from each other.
The thing with this forum thread is that is that my second post is the last. So my questions remain unanswered and still stands now, a year later:
"Concerning the caption, I still haven't got the reason why we forbid something the Wikipedia allows and we use the same software than the Wikipedia. How do other Wikis translate pages?"
Could you maybe answer them?
And you used the word 'pingpong' when you undid Vocx's edit:
Yes because he reverted my action without any notice or discussion to my talk page or the Wiki talk page itself. Just reverting usually upsets people (in this case me), thus this should be avoided until it is urgent (e.g. the release page is modified shore before a release.) So when I would revert something with discussion, you can call me an asshole and then you are not rude, but right. Then I made a mistake and will excuse. And since I am only a human it might be that I did this in the past. For that case, I excuse and promise not to do this in future.
> Screens range from smart phones to 4K, taking 15" as a reference is then rather arbitrary.
Why do I not count as a valid reader of the Wiki? This screen size is not arbitrary since there are many laptops around. The point is that Wikimedia has a nice mobile display more. So on a smartphone the Wikipedia looks nice, but this won't be activated on a 15 inch screen. I contribute to the Wikipedia and our Wiki uses the same Wiki engine, therefore I know the difficulties. In the Wikipedia there are a lot of discussions about image sizes and often the solution is the make them smaller and on a click you get the full size (like we do in our pages for releases). By omitting the OK/Cancel buttons the problem is often already solved by the smaller vertical size.
Note, that I don't step through all pages and images. Only when I watch a page on my laptop and encounter an issue in readability, I act. And I think this is the normal way - one sees somethings and fixes it. This could be a wording, a typo but also an image size.
> OK, you have called me childish
There is an image, I think it consumes too much space and made arguments why this is an issue. You don't argue but delete the image. So your focus was not on the readers because they suffer from it. Since your action was not to improve the amount of information nor the readability, I think it not too unfair to say this was not mature. Also not to debate but to delete "That way we both don't get what we want" as you wrote is, well yes, childish, because it is not about us two.
> now you call me rude
You called me stubborn. As if I had chosen the laptop. No I am forced to use it and CAD with such a small screen is no fun. I am aware of this and therefore don't do something for the CAD itself. However, reading a Wiki like the Wikipedia works nicely also with a laptop. And luckily FC's Wiki uses MediaWiki too so we can benefit from all Wikipedia features and their solutions.
--uwestoehr (talk) 23:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
> why we forbid something the Wikipedia allows
The GuiCommand_model page is there to guide but also restrict editors. Command reference pages must follow this model, only then can these pages have a consistent look. If we allow all Wikipedia features it would become a complete mess.
> Note, that I don't step through all pages and images. Only when I watch a page on my laptop and encounter an issue in readability, I act.
This is actually one of the problems we are facing: Ad-hoc modifications by well meaning editors that break the consistency of a Docnav sequence. Every editor has their own personal ideas of what looks best. Some want more vertical space and add lots of linebreaks (even inside headings), others want all icons to be bigger, or use the KEY template everywhere, etc. We simply cannot afford to allow this.
--Roy 043 (talk) 08:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
> The GuiCommand_model page is there to guide but also restrict editors. Command reference pages must follow this model, only then can these pages have a consistent look. If we allow all Wikipedia features it would become a complete mess.
I don't understand your fears. Using all Wikipedia features does not lead to a complete mess, or do you feel the Wikipedia looks inconsistent? I mean the Wiki is a collection of many different persons. Even if we want, I think we will only be frustrated by seeing that new users do it their way. The Wikipedia faces the same.
As you have noticed, I worked a lot with the FC Wiki to add info but also to get it consistent with FC. However, from the user's perspective the info is what counts (and I speak from the times I learned FC). So as long as we have at least the info a feature is used we can later bit by bit we can harmonize its layout. Currently we have many pages with no real info, e.g. in the FEM WB and this is sad. I wrote private messages when FC 0.19 was released to some FEM contributors and got the feedback form some developers that for them there are too many Wiki rules and style things one have to obey and they don't have the time to learn this first.
We should encourage people to edit the Wiki. For example, depending on the OS, a screenshot will always look different, also its size may vary depending on the resolution, even when the OS is the same. Some use the right tags like for Keys, but most are simply not aware of these. Some copy Wikipedia code to get the syntax right and this is all OK as long as we get info on how a feature is to be used, tips and tricks, we can be happy. I recently introduced FC to further colleagues and I sent them links to Wiki pages. The feedback is positive. I also asked them about the style and they don't care much if e.g. an image has a caption etc. They notice that some pages look different but did not complain so far. Only in some tutorials like this one images were too large. (I will now try to make them smaller and I see some images also need updates.)
Back to the image I modified, can you please bring it back? Many thanks and regards
--uwestoehr (talk) 23:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Much of what you are saying now has no bearing on the issue at hand. I know there are many editors who are not aware of the wiki standards. But you are not one of them, and you should not use them as an excuse. The arguments you have given for deviating from the standards have already been addressed and rejected. I don't have anything more to add.
--Roy 043 (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
> The arguments you have given for deviating from the standards have already been addressed and rejected.
Please don't be immediately upset. The question is what are the standards, who set them up and when? I think we both agree that we need to attract more people. The feedback I got while documenting the new features for FC 0.19 is not good. So something should be changed. And why can't a standard be changed / adjusted by time?
So to act, let's maybe at first write down what the standards are. Then we can discuss them in the forum. OK? Maybe such a list with standards already exists?
Concerning the editors who are not aware of the standards, these are important for me because when I started, I could not find them as well and even now I have no clear list of how to act. I can also understand that e.g. a good Python coder doesn't have the time to work into the Wiki details. That's why we share our work. People like us take care of the Wiki and it is OK when others only contribute program code. Looking at some almost empty pages I insist that it is more important to have at first info, no matter what style they are in. We can then change this later e.g. once when the release is made and we revise the different WB pages.
Last but not least, I think you will feel more and more upset when you see that many Wiki users don't follow the standards. As I wrote previously, even if you try hard, people will never do things exactly as you like them to have and accepting this is mandatory not to become grumpy by time. You do a fantastic job that I highly appreciate! And I really mean this. Please stay open for new ideas from new users. Standard are changed all the time since they are a consensus reflecting new developments, ideas and people.
thanks and regards --uwestoehr (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
> Maybe such a list with standards already exists?
One of the pinned topics on the Wiki forum links to WikiPages, which in turn links to Help:Editing and GuiCommand_model. These three pages form the standards. The last page is the main one here, and you are certainly aware of it. It is a deliberately simple template so that novices are not overwhelmed. But what you want is in fact the opposite: you want to use everything the mediawiki software allows.
> I insist that it is more important to have at first info, no matter what style they are in.
The issue that has sparked this discussion has absolutely nothing to do with content, but everything with layout and style. So you advocating for more tolerance in that regard is a bit bizarre.
I feel that way too much time has been waste on this issue. For me the discussion ends here.
--Roy 043 (talk) 13:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Names of props in the GUI start with a cap

Hi Roy, thanks for having a look at my edits and for some useful hints, but this coment in the headline puzzles me.

The properties' names in the property editor do not start with capitals and as far as I know (or rather believe...) that resembles the orthography of the python code and should therefore be carried over into the wiki descriptions.

Is it a convention that I haven't stumbled across yet?

FBXL5 (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I see now that this is not handled consistently in the SheetMetal Workbench. F.e for a bend you have:
  • Bend Type
  • angle
  • base Object
The name of the last property looks weird of course and gives you an idea of the algorithm used to populate the Property editor.
I'll revert my mod.
--Roy 043 (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
It definitely looks weird...
FBXL5 (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

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?

<!--T: --> comments

Hey Roy!

I am sure it is a super-lame question, but what are those comments and why are they important?

These are special tags that mark translation units.
BTW: you should sign your additions to Talk pages (third button above the text areas with the small x and the squiggle). If you do you'll be warned if the other person responds.
--Roy 043 (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

SearchBar Mod / Workbench

Hi Roy, thanks a lot for the edits ( and and fixing the typos in my wiki syntax :) . The SearchBar mod is not yet available on the package manager, and I intend to wait until it's deemed stable before I do so. So the package manager icon in External_workbenches and the installation step in SearchBar_Workbench should be omitted for now, right? Also this Mod is not an actual workbench (the search bar appears regardless of the workbench that is selected, and it does not have its own entry in the list of workbenches), I assume the page should nonetheless be called SearchBar_Workbench since you did the rename, but I just thought I'll double check you didn't think this was an actual workbench :) . Thanks a lot and have a nice weekend :D ! Suzanne Soy (talk) 22:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted the name changes and have removed the AddonManager icon from the table entry on the External workbenches page. TheMarkster's screenshot on the forum had me fooled.
Note that if you sign your messages on Talk pages with the 'x-squiggle' button (at the top of the text area) you will be automatically warned if there is an answer.
--Roy 043 (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks: Suzanne Soy (talk) 22:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)