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 :-)

Ok, I removed it. Happy, y'all? :) Gryzor 20:00, 29 August 2006 (CEST)

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)

Well, I differ in my opinion with yours. I don't like a big sidebar and prefer a good main page which can bring me directly to the different stuff in the Wiki, because you have much more room there to give a good entry point. Btw, I only use 1024x768 and I so I see it till "Software-Programming" in the sidebar (ok, will change if I get a new notebook someday ;)). Anyway, I will join the majority =). --Octoate 19:54, 29 August 2006 (CEST)

"Software-Programming" is your last visible entry? 8-O Maybe you choosed a font size of 300% and installed the Google, Yahoo and MSN toolbars at the same time? ;-)) My last entry is "Editing help", well, with 1280x1024. Ok, the sidebar could be still optimized, maybe we can move "About - contribute" to the end (it should be also mentioned on the start page) and remove "PD libraries" as an example (not so important for having an own entry point here IMHO). -- Prodatron 20:26, 29 August 2006 (CEST)

Here at work I use 2560x1024, so there is no problem here. Maybe I will use a smaller font size and buy some glasses for my notebook ;-) --Octoate 10:52, 30 August 2006 (CEST)

The reason I rolled it back to a more expanded list (though I condensed the CPC models) is that, if it's not like that, then surely there's no reason in having a Sidebar? 8) Though I understand that on some resolutions (are you really on 1024?? :D ) the entire SIdebar may not be visible, I think that removing it altogether is much worse than having one that doesn't show in its entirety!

Concerning the main page, now, it should not be the only launching page - the user should not need to get to the homepage in order to jump to a different category, hence the use of the Sidebar. On the other hand I find it much more useful as it is right now, than like it was before, though it can be improved somewhat - I'll agree with Prodatron in that it looks somewhat 'dry' right now.Gryzor 20:05, 29 August 2006 (CEST)

Oh come on.. wich BAST)(&" has modified the Sidebar again to that really useless and annoying list of unwanted links :-D Why dont use the mainpage AND the SEARCH to find content, instead of adding things wild, unorganized and useless to the sidebar?? Kangaroo MusiQue of HJT 21:49, 29 August 2006 (CEST)

You and Octo have your mainpage, and Gryzor and me have our sidebar. Everyone is happy now :-P -- Prodatron 21:58, 29 August 2006 (CEST)

=) --Octoate 10:52, 30 August 2006 (CEST)

I think it´s useful to have some more things on the Sidebar than before. But now it´s too much... As Prodi already said PD libraries should be kicked out, also clones and some others too... --Villain 21:57, 29 August 2006 (CEST)

Sounds good! -- Prodatron 21:58, 29 August 2006 (CEST)

It did it in this way and moved "contribute" to the end. Is it better now? Btw, how can I clear the cache? -- Prodatron 22:04, 29 August 2006 (CEST)

The Bastard is me, I would guess. As I said, the reason for rolling it back is that under the short form, there is simply NO NEED for the sidebar. The sidebar is there for the reader to be able to navigate quickly to all parts of the wiki without having to go to the main page. It is NOT useless, certainly NOT unwanted (I use it all the time instead of the main page links) and I doubt it's annoying - the space is empty if you don't put links there, so it goes wasted. The Main Page is NOT the place to put links on and is much harder to use than the sidebar. Unorganized? I wouldn't think so - the structure is quite ok right now, if anyone can think of ways to improve it, please do step forward. It's not even wild, since it has been tamed a lot since its first appearance, and definitely not unorganized - see the little boxes that organise it? :p Gryzor 09:49, 30 August 2006 (CEST)

Now we have:

• Discussion
• Suggestions
• Talk:Main_Page

In the sidebar, "discussion page" is the main page talk, on the main page "discussion" is the discussion page. Maybe we should clean this up a little bit or create some definitions, what to write where? -- Prodatron 22:32, 29 August 2006 (CEST)