14

I've just started:

The Unofficial TeX-SX FAQ

To keep that one clean, this one is for discussion about it. Things to decide upon:

  1. Layout
  2. Formatting of the subsidiary questions (and how to keep them clean)
  3. What should go in it
  4. Anything else anyone can think of

For the last, I took the list of links in What goes in the FAQ? and tried to divide them roughly according to category.

Incidentally, I've asked for the main question to be made CW. I suspect that most things aren't going to be controversial, and those that are will be obviously controversial, so there shouldn't be any danger in people editing stuff in if they think it should be there.

May I recommend that specific proposals get put in fresh answers to this question, whereupon forthcoming discussion on each proposal continues in its comment thread; that way we get a modicum of threading.

6
  • Maybe this one could be useful? meta.tex.stackexchange.com/questions/1010/…
    – Martin Tapankov
    Commented Mar 10, 2011 at 12:24
  • @Martin: Looks good to me. (Note my edit: when the main one is made CW, people should feel free to add in "no-brainers" like that one)
    – Andrew Stacey
    Commented Mar 10, 2011 at 12:43
  • Is there a way to make the "official" link meta.tex.stackexchange.com/faq resolve to this location?
    – Matthew Leingang
    Commented Mar 10, 2011 at 13:29
  • 1
    @Martin, @Andrew: I think this one is more focussed: My question was closed as a duplicate, but I still need help. What can I do? It actually came into existence because I wanted this more focussed version. If you think it can be improved, please go ahead; that's why it's CW.
    – Hendrik Vogt
    Commented Mar 10, 2011 at 14:04
  • @Hendrik: You're right, I'd forgotten that one. I've added that one in. The uFAQ is now CW so feel free to add more, and to reorganise it (I'm not happy with the current organisation).
    – Andrew Stacey
    Commented Mar 10, 2011 at 14:29
  • All general information about tagging should be contained in “our set of tags”. The linked questions are just discussions, so I made a sublist out of them. (Also I just realized that the heading font has real italics!)
    – Caramdir
    Commented Mar 11, 2011 at 4:37

5 Answers 5

Reset to default
3

I think we should have a link to the Recent feature changes to Stack Exchange in the unofficial faq, but I'm not sure where. Whenever it happens that the site looks different, this is the place where on can find help.

Edit: I've now put a link under "Something Weird Just Happened".

3

I think the "Link to editing help?" is not useful; a direct link to editing help would be better. Thoughts?

2
  • Sounds good to me.
    – Andrew Stacey
    Commented Mar 22, 2011 at 20:18
  • OK, I've done that now.
    – Hendrik Vogt
    Commented Apr 22, 2011 at 19:15
3

I propose we add a Return to FAQ index link

[Return to FAQ index](https://tex.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1144)

at the bottom of every FAQ-linked post. This seems to be the trend on Meta.SE as well, as can be seen from any link followed in FAQ for Stack Exchange sites. That way people who visit the FAQ can easily jump from the index to a listed question and back. Alternatively, those who land on an FAQ, can perhaps be inclined to browse other FAQs.

2

So this is the thread where you propse that something be tagged ? Then I'd like to propse How do you accept an answer? be tagged so. There are a number of users who have really low accepting rates.

0

About presentation of this "Unofficial FAQ":

I think that you should put the main part of the FAQ as an answer to the question itself and accept this content as the correct answer.

Besides being more logical, this can prevent it to appear in the "unanswered" list, completely avoid any lookup by the stale question removal mechanism.

I am surprised this item has not been more often favorited or voted up but I think this is partly due to that situation.

3
  • I disagree with its being more logical! It is only logical if you think of it as a "question and answer". If you think of it as a single, say, wiki page then the format makes more sense as it is. I think that the number of favourites and votes is quite good for meta. And I don't think that the "unanswered" list has much use here on meta either! Personally, I think that having meta in the same Q&A format as the main site is just daft, but then I come from MO not SO so I'm biased.
    – Andrew Stacey
    Commented Apr 22, 2011 at 18:01
  • MO was my first experience with this kind of system and I agree that the strong difference there between main and meta made sense.
    – ogerard
    Commented Apr 22, 2011 at 18:46
  • Yes, so my behaviour on meta is to pretty much ignore all the features that get in the way! In particular insisting that all "questions" have "answers". But I have no objection in principle to your suggestions - whatever works best is best.
    – Andrew Stacey
    Commented Apr 22, 2011 at 19:15

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .