Talk:Main Page

• For older talks please have a look at the Archive.

Could we please stay with this usual format for talk pages? It is used in all the other Wikis, and as you see, there is a "+" function, which supports this format, too. Every new entry is placed at the end, not at the top. It is also more easy to jump into a section to continue the discussion there. Time by time the contributes can be moved into the archive. -- Prodatron 18:19, 12 August 2006 (CEST)

While there are such few categories by now we should decide whether they should be in singular or plural now. -- Ythcal 14:08, 13 August 2006 (CEST)

Please remember: Languages and countries are written upper-case in English (eg. Germany, French)! -- Ythcal 17:24, 14 August 2006 (CEST)

Do very small "stubs" make sense? I think not, as it's just disappointing to watch them. I tried to extend a lot of stubs, but again people are inserting useless 3 word entries - have a look at "short pages". It shouldn't be the goal to have as many senseless 3 word articles as possible but to create interesting information. What do you think?

I think its necessarry to have such ages to have things in mind and to have a chance that someone can re-edit the page in knowing, its being there, instead of not remembering things. Sometimes it is very helpfull for me to find a short description about a group, a module or something and if i remember more i'll write it down.

I also agree to Kangaroo, it's good to have already an entry, so that we will not forget this subject. But we should add a new category "stubs", so that it's more easy to find these articles! -- Prodatron 15:08, 25 August 2006 (CEST)

may i add "Leather Rebel" untder "Stubs-Nase" then? :-D Kangaroo MusiQue of HJT 20:40, 28 August 2006 (CEST)

Could anybody lock the FutureOS article in it´s current version? I just see the beginning of something but I´m sure how it will end.

Done. Please provide sources of information, if you want to change anything. I also removed the last sentence ("four new features in six years"), as it could be negatively interpreted. Please do the discussion inside the articles talk page. -- Prodatron 18:44, 25 August 2006 (CEST)

If we start to add the news to own categories we should avoid naming the news article with "News:" as prefix, because in the category listing everything would appear under the letter 'N'. The same problem occurs with programming articles (prefix "Programming:"). Maybe we should remove the prefix from this articles? --Octoate 10:12, 28 August 2006 (CEST)

Uh, good question... Somehow I like these prefixes, and as there are already sorted lists we even don't need the categories at all, but on the other hand you are also right. Don't know... -- Prodatron 13:59, 28 August 2006 (CEST)

As I still don´t understand why we have two search windows I repeat the question if we really need them both? ;-) --Villain 17:08, 28 August 2006 (CEST)

Yup. The second one (the top one) was added when the sidebar was so tall that the lower search field was out of the screen. Now the sidebar is too short, but it will probably grow again.... Gryzor 18:22, 28 August 2006 (CEST)

hey.. i'm just waiting for someone who tells me.. REMOVE THAT F*/&%NG second Search-Field and.. booom.. it will be gone :-D Kangaroo MusiQue of HJT

Hey Kanga, REMOVE THAT F*/&%NG second search field! --Octoate 21:04, 28 August 2006 (CEST)

Don´t know if anybody else already told you but: REMOVE THAT F*/&%NG second Search-Field --Villain 21:09, 28 August 2006 (CEST)

Ok, have noticed the Wink with the Zaunpfahl :-) and i will do my job tomorrow, if i find time :-)

TBH I like Gryzors rollback of the sidebar, as all the important main links should be mentioned there to have fast access from every point inside CPCWiki. With an usual screen resolution you should see the complete main part of the sidebar, so I don't see any problem with its length.

Regarding the main page, what's about redesigning it a little bit in the way of most other Wikis like Wikipedia? The main page shouldn't contain the complete site map. I like the style of Wikipedia much more. -- Prodatron 16:29, 29 August 2006 (CEST)